BAIJNATH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by a class IV employee of the North Eastern Railway, challenging the order of the Railway authorities rejecting his application for correction of age in his service record.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Class IV employee in casual vacancy in the North Eastern Railway in April, 1954. After few months he was appointed as peon in the same cadre. At the time of his appointment the petitioner was verbally asked to give his age but was not required to submit any proof in support thereof. The petitioner who was born on 2nd September, 1929 gave his age as 24 -25 years. He was, therefore, medically examined by the Railway doctor to ascertain his age and was found about 25 years old. However, in the seniority list prepared by the department his date of birth was mentioned as 15th April, 1919 instead of 2nd September, 1929. Under the then existing rules mistake in recording the date of birth of an employee in the service record could be corrected at his instance on furnishing satisfactory proof. Subsequently rules were amended on 3rd December, 1971 to provide that the request for alteration of date of birth of an employee should not be entertained after completion of the period of probation or three years' service whichever earlier. This amendment deprived the railway servants who were appointed earlier and could not take advantage of the existing rule providing the opportunity for getting the age corrected and as such on 4th August, 1972 the Railway Board decided to give them another opportunity to represent against their recorded date of birth upto 31st July, 1973.

(3.) THE order dated 31st January, 1974 did not assign any reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner filed a representation to the Divisional Accounts Officer on 25th April, 1974. The petitioner did not receive any reply from the Divisional Accounts Officer and as such he made another representation to the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer (Administration) on 30th October, 1975. The petitioner requested the railway authorities that he should be medically examined to ascertain his correct age, and be provided an opportunity of personal hearing enabling him to explain his case. The Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, however, without getting the petitioner medically examined and affording him an opportunity of hearing rejected his representation on 8th January, 1976.