BAGHEL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Baghel Singh applies for quashing the entry regarding his date of birth appearing in his service record, and for an appropriate writ or direction requiring the railway administration to allow him to enter therein his correct date of birth in his own handwriting as per Rule 145 (1) of the Railway Establishment Code.

(2.) THE facts leading; to this application, briefly stated, are these -. On 25 June 1927, the petitioner was appointed as a routine clerk in the office of the Director of Railway Clearing Accounts under the Railway Board. His services were eventually transferred to the South eastern Railway and he was working as senior travelling inspector (accounts) on 11 September 1967, when this application was made and when he was on the verge of retirement, and since than he has retired from service on 25 January 1968, The petitioner had, prior to the filing of this application, served the railway administration with a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 1 June 1967 of his intention to file a civil suit claiming the same reliefs on precisely the earns grounds. It is now asserted that a suit is not an equally efficacious remedy and, therefore, this application lies.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with this application, It is necessary to set cut a few more facts. At the time of his initial appointment, the establishment clerk entered "15 January 1910" as the date of birth of the petitioner in his service record and this entry was duly attested by the petitioner. These records were destroyed by fire in the year 1945 and they have since been reconstructed. In the reconstructed record, the date of birth again appears to be 15 January 1910 and this entry has also been attested by the petitioner. The petitioner now alleges that, at the time of his appointment, he had given his date of birth as " 13 January 1911", but the establishment clerk made a mistake in making the relevant entry. This was said to be a "mere clerical mistake" and, as regards the attestation of the entry by the petitioner, it was asserted that, as a fresh entrant, he did not know that he had to verify the entries made, but had simply signed at the place indicated by the clerk concerned. This was said to be due to his "inexperience. " It is rather significant that the petitioner never moved the authorities for rectifying the alleged mistake in recording a wrong entry of his date of birth in his service record within a reasonable period of his appointment. The petitioner first made an attempt in the year 1955 to get the entry changed. but this was turned down on the ground that the entry, having been attested by him in his own handwriting, no alteration of such date was permissible under the rules. Thereafter the petitioner has been making persistent efforts to get alteration of the entry, but the authorities have adhered to their earlier decision that the date of birth as entered cannot be altered.