SARITA RAJAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as contained in Annexure P-7, dated 28.07.2010, this petition is filed by Sarita Rajak, daughter of late Kailash Prasad Rajak. Late Kailash Prasad Rajak was working in the establishment of 1 TTR/I-STC, Jabalpur. He entered the service on 01.04.1972 and at the time of entry into service, his date of birth was recorded as 01.04.1945. He continued to work in the department and based on the date of birth as indicted herein above, he was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2005. After his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, Late Kailash Prasad Rajak submitted a representation along with certain certificates issued by the educational institutes indicating that his date of birth was 01.01.1954. When the claim made for correction of the date of birth was not accepted by the department, the application in question under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act was filed before the Tribunal and same having been dismissed by the impugned order, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents, we find that the order in question was passed by the Tribunal on 28.07.2010. Late Kailash Prasad Rajak is said to have expired on 15.01.2013, i.e. after a period of more than 21/2 years of passing of the order impugned by the Tribunal and during his lifetime, Late Kailash Prasad Rajak did not have any grievance with regard to the order passed by the Tribunal and it is now after his death that his daughter is questioning the said order. On account of this fact itself, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) That apart, we find that Shri Kailash Prasad Rajak never challenged the entries made in the service record during his lifetime. He worked in the department from 01.04.1972 right up to the date of superannuation, i.e. 31.03.2005, accepting the entries made in the service record indicating his date of birth as 01.04.1945. He retired accepting the same to be correct and after retirement, challenged the entries made in the service record. The Tribunal has taken note of all these factors and held that the employee cannot challenge the entries made in the service record, particularly with regard to the date of birth at the verge of retirement and in this case as the challenge is made much after the retirement, the application is dismissed. We are of the considered view that the aforesaid findings recorded by the Tribunal is correct and does not call for any interference.