H.C. ANAND Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT write petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2003 (Annexure P -2) and the office order dated 22.1.2004 issued by the Engineer -in -Chief and Executive Engineer respectively. By the orders, impugned 1.3.1944 was accepted as the date of birth of the petitioner and accordingly he has been retired from Government service on 28.2.2004.

(2.) ACCORDING to petitioner for the first time by letter dated 5.3.2003 he became aware that there is some confusion regarding his date of birth as it was not written in words. Further case of the petitioner is that without holding any enquiry, Engineer -in -Chief issued the order dated 22.11.2003 mentioning that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1.3.1994 and on that basis, he would retire from Government service on 28.2.2004. It is also contended that at the time of entry into Government service petitioner without retaining a copy had submitted the original certificate of Higher Secondary Examination and on the strength thereof 1.3.1949 was accepted as the petitioner's date of birth and same was after due verification was recorded in the service book. It is further contended that under Rule 84 of the Financial Code, date of birth declared by an employee and once accepted by the employer is final, and thereafter no change is permissible without affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee. In support of his claim, petitioner submitted that attested copy of the school leaving certificate dated 21.3.2003 (Annexure P -5) before the authorities. Petitioner further relies upon birth certificate (Annexure P -6) and the entry made in GPP Accounts maintained by the A.G.M.P. Gwalior (Annexure P -7). According to petitioner there is no interpolation in recorded date of birth therefore it was not necessary to refer the matter to Departmental Committee. Thus, reference to Departmental Committee without affording opportunity of hearing is bad in law. During the course of arguments learned Counsel for petitioner also contended that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner by the Departmental Committee before arriving at the conclusion that his date of birth is 1.3.1944. There was no material to arrive at such conclusion. Thus, entire action on the part of respondents is bad in law, orders impugned are therefore liable to set aside, and petitioner is entitled to continue in service until he attains the age of superannuation based on his date of birth as 1.3.1949.

(3.) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for parties and going through the material placed on record, in the considered opinion of this Court there is no merit and substance in the present writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed. A bare perusal of the date of birth recorded in the service book reveals that there is interpolation and 4' was converted into 9' by a different ink. At running page 48 of service book, there is an entry of the order passed by the Chief Engineer on 20.7.1991 granting exemption from passing departmental exam as petitioner had crossed the age of 45 years. If date of birth as clamed by the petitioner is accepted then obviously petitioner was less than 45 years of age in the year 1991. That apart, in the School Leaving Certificate (Annexure P -5) there is interpolation and the date of entry in the school has been changed from 1955 to 1956 as would be evident from perusal of Annexure R -16 filed alongwith the reply. Alongwith Annexure R -16, respondents have also filed relevant extract of Scholar's Register of the School. In the said document date of admission is given as 20.7.1955 and the age at the time of admission is mentioned as 11 years 4 months. Principal of the School has also clearly mentioned that in the scholar register there is an interpolation in the date of birth. If petitioner was born in the year 1949 then it would be next to impossible to get admission in 5th Standard in the year 1955 just after completing age of 6 years. Similarly, reliance placed on Annexure P -6 is of no avail to the petitioner because it was obtained on mere affidavit of his elder brother without any supporting documents. Respondents alongwith their additional reply have also filed relevant extract of Scholar Register of the Ujjain Polytechnic wherein, 1.3.1944 is recorded as the petitioner's date of birth. Petitioner had almost a decade to obtain arid submit the Matriculation Certificate before the departmental authorities in support of his claim but he failed to do so. Even on 2.9.2004 learned Counsel appearing for petitioner sought a week's adjournment as the petitioner was expecting to get the Matriculation Certificate very shortly. Prayer was accepted and the hearing of the case was adjourned by 10 days. During the adjournment petitioner if he wanted could have obtained the Certificate but lie failed to do so. This only goes to show that all along petitioner was interested only in suppressing the material document and wanted to take advantage of unauthorised interpolation in the service book, as he is the sole beneficiary of the said interpolation. It was for the petitioner to produce the Matriculation Certificate, which is the accepted mode to prove date of birth. Reliance placed on other documents like entry in the GIT account or certificate issued by the Executive Engineer has to be seen in whole context of the case and not in isolation to come to a conclusion that date of birth is 13.1949. The upshot of the discussion is that in view of interpolation, which established beyond doubt, respondents are right in contending that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1.3.1944.