SANATAN BOWRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner was an employee of Durgapur Steel Plant. As per the service card his date of birth is September 15, 1942. In another place of the service card his date of birth was recorded as February 24, 1943. His Identity Card shows his date of birth as February 24, 1943 where as medical card shows that his year of birth is 1943. School certificate date September 25, 1970 produced by the writ petitioner to his employer shows his date of birth as 24th February, 1943. Writ petitioner was asked in the year 1975 (exact date is not supplied by any of the parties) to produce documents in support of his age. Accordingly, the school certificate was produced in the year 1975 which is not in dispute. The writ petitioner was superannuated from his service on the basis of his personal file where his date of birth was recorded as September 13, 1936. On an enquiry made by the Court, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that since at the time of joining, the writ petitioner could not furnish any documents in support of his age, the medical officer on the basis of an approximate recorded his age as stated hereinbefore. However, he admitted that there was no proper test conducted at the time of such recording or any time thereafter by the Respondent.

(2.) Ms. Debjani Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the documents in support of the age of the writ petitioner as stated hereinbefore are sufficient to hold that the date of birth of the writ petitioner is February 24, 1943. She also submitted that the recording to the effect that the age of the writ petitioner is of September 19, 1936 is based on estimation made by the Medical Officer at the time of joining without availing proper mode of ascertaining age and as such the writ petitioner is entitled to have his service record corrected as he should have been allowed to work till the date of superannuation on the basis of the date of birth as claimed by him.

(3.) Mr. Manas Ranjan Kundu, learned Advocate for the respondent, submitted that there had been a gradation list published in the year 1973 which shows the date of birth of the writ petitioner as of 1936 since no challenge had been made by the writ petitioner 'contemporaneously he is not entitled to pray for the relief as has been prayed herein. It was also urged on behalf of the respondent that the writ petitioner in any event was hit by the circular dated June 20, 1987 issued by the Respondent authority wherein it has been made categorically clear that no dispute with regard to correction of age would be entertained beyond during the last 5 years of his service tenure. According to Mr. Kundu the writ petitioner prayed for correction of his age in 1992 whereas he had been superannuated on 1994. As it was during the last 5 years of service as such the said application of the writ petitioner was hit by the said circular dated June 20, 1987. According to the respondent by an order dated July 9, 1992 Susanta Chatterjee-J (as His Lordship then was) directed the respondent authority to give a personal hearing to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was given such personal hearing with the assistance of a defence helper, the representation of the writ petitioner had been, considered by the authority and had been disposed of by a reasoned order appearing at page No. 25 of the writ petition. It was also contended by Shri Kundu that the defence helper of the writ petitioner in course of hearing admitted that the recording in the service card or the identity card or the medical card could not be considered as proof of his age as those were based upon unilateral declaration of the employee concerned. With regard to certificate it was contended that since the certificate was obtained in the year 1970 i.e. 18 years after the date of his leaving the school the said certificate should not be considered although the same was submitted in August' 1975.