PRABHAT KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are compelled to preface this judgment by stating in a most categorical and unequivocal manner that the effort of the petitioner to get his age of superannuation extended is indefatigable at times creating a sense of puzzlement and at times transgressing all limits of rationality and logicality. The persuasive proclivity is unmatched but unfortunately unwarranted. Hopes harboured by the petitioner would unfold layer by layer when the facts would be uncurtained and we will be required to deal with the same.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as H. S.-I in the Machine Shop of the Gun Carriage Factory. It is his case that at the time of his entry into service in the historic year of 1962 his date of birth was mentioned as 7-8-1940 on the basis of the educational certificate as he had passed Class VII. He appeared in the matriculation examination in the year 1966 but fortune did not favour him and he remained unsuccessful to cross the bridge. However, the certificate granted by the authority of the Board of Secondary Education reflected his date of birth as 7-8-1942. Time as usual passed without even waiting for darkness of night or the bright rays of the sun and with the passage of time many an employee raised disputes with regard to dates of birth inasmuch as dates of birth in respect of some employees were entered on the basis of the medical examination. Keeping the aforesaid factual scenario in view the concerned Department on 12-6-1987 issued a letter circular inviting objections by 25-6-1987 to substantiate the dates of birth. The toll of time as it seems did not have much of effect or impact on the petitioner but his undaunted attitude prompted him to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur by filing an O. A. No. 79/98 claiming correction of his date of birth. The Tribunal vide Paragraph 3 of its order held as under:-" the applicant has neither made any representation nor has placed copy of it on record. There is also no mention of the representation in the application. In this background we cannot entertain this application. Any application for correction of date of birth should be made within five years of entry into service. Further in the instant case the applicant passed matriculation in the year 1966 and in his Matriculation Certificate the date of birth recorded is 7-8-1942. The applicant should have approached the authorities at least within five years of his passing the Matriculation Examination. That having not been done, the application is dismissed without notice to the other side. "

(3.) THE petitioner chose to maintain golden silence at that juncture not to assail the aforesaid order, but being enterprising in nature, if we allow ourselves to say so, and slightly innovative, he approached the Tribunal in the O. A No. 850/98. The Tribunal did not lend much importance to the pleas putforth by the petitioner. It was his stance that he had submitted a representation in the year 1987 for alteration of his date of birth but the Tribunal did not give much credence to the said version. Quite apart from the above, the Tribunal also opined that the application was barred by limitation as well as res judicata. Being of this view, the Tribunal rejected that aforesaid Original Application.