UNION OF INDIA Vs. NATHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) Present writ petition has been filed on behalf of Union of India against the order dtd. 18/11/2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No.330/00278 of 2019 by which application of the respondent has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by setting aside the order dtd. 24/12/2018 retiring him from service on 31/3/2019 on the basis of consideration of his date of birth as 12/3/1959, instead of 20/8/1961 by making correction on 27/1/1995.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the service record, date of birth of the respondent was incorrectly mentioned as 20/8/1961 though as per medical certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad dtd. 12/3/1984, age of the respondent was about 25 years at the time of entering into service in the year 1984 as majdur under Garrison Engineer, Bamrauli. Therefore, the same was corrected in the service record of the respondent in 1995. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has filed time barred original application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad because as per Sec. 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the limitation for filing the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal is one year but, in the present case, the respondent has filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in 2019, though correction in his date of birth was made in 1995. It was further mentioned that correction in the service record regarding the date of birth of the respondent was well in the knowledge of the respondent and he never made any objection or representation against the same to the competent authority. It was further contended by the petitioners that under the service rule, service book is required to be shown to Government servant every year and his signature should be obtained on the same. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that it is the responsibility of the concerned Government servant that his service should have been duly verified by the competent authority. It was also submitted by the petitioners that on 30/10/2018, a seniority list of Mason HS-II was circulated by Headquarter CWE Allahabad mentioning the date of birth of the respondent as 12/3/1959 on the basis of correction made in the year 1995 and only thereafter, the respondent made representation against the correction of his date of birth to Headquarter CWE Allahabad which was duly considered and replied by letter dtd. 14/12/2018 stating that correct date of birth of the respondent is 12/3/1959 but the respondent has not filed any objection against the letter dtd. 14/12/2018 of HQCWE Allahabad nor have challenged the same before any competent authority but at the verge of retirement i.e. on 2/3/2019, the respondent has moved a representation for restraining the superannuation from service w.e.f. 31/3/2019 and also requested for necessary correction of his date of birth mentioned in the service record. But that was duly replied by the competent authority vide letter dtd. 6/4/2019. Thereafter, prior to his retirement, when the order dtd. 24/12/2018 was issued by the office of GE (AF Division) Gorakhpur, the respondent had challenged the same by filing original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad.