S N CHAKRABARTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Rule the petitioner, a railway servant, has impeached the validity of the order passed on 13th July, 1983 by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer whereby the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with the order made by this Court on 8th June, 1 983 was rejected and the earlier decision as to the date of birth recorded in the seniority list, staff register as well as in the medical identity card as on 13th July, 1925 has been maintained on the grounds that the school leaving certificate granted by the Headmaster of the school in 1 948 as well as the Life Insurance Polices issued by the three Insurance Co. , namely, Life Insurance corporation of India, The Hindustan Co-operative Societies as well as The Arysthan Insurance Society wherein the petitioners age was recorded, and more particularly the policy issued by the Insurance Companies recorded the age of the petitioner on consideration of the school leaving certificate as also the age as noted in his ticket No. 11/191 in the shop in the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works where the petitioner was employed at the relevant time was noted were not considered.

(2.) THE petitioner who was a resident of Bangladesh, came over to West Bengal sometime in 1 948 and while coming here he had brought a school leaving certificate according to which his date of birth is 31st March, 1928. A copy of this certificate has been annexed as Annexure A to the Writ application. A copy of the Policy issued by the Aryasthan Insurance Co. Ltd. has been annexed as Annexure B to the Writ application according to which the date of birth of the petitioner would be 3 1st March, 1928. In 1951 on the basis of the application he was selected on 1st February, 1951 as a basic tradesman in the shop of the chittaranjan Locomotive Works and an appointment letter was given to him. According to the rules of the Railways, the petitioner recorded his date of birth in his own handwriting which was 31st March, 1928. The said original service-sheet of 1951 containing the petitioners own hand-writing wherein his date of birth and a summary statement of his bio-date was written along with the petitioners signature and thumb impression has been maintained in the personnel officer of the Chittaranjan locomotive Works. It has been stated further that on 10th December, 1 973 on the basis of seniority-cum-merit test, the petitioner was promoted to the next post in the scale of Rs. 425-700/ -. On the 25th April, 1983 the petitioner received a communication from the Deputy Chief [personnel Officer, respondent. No. 3 intimating him that as per has date of birth recorded as 15th july, 1925, in all the official documents, the petitioner would retire on reaching the age of superannuation on 15th July, 1 983. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure Go to this Writ petition. On receiving the said communication the petitioner on 10th May, 1983 made a representation that in accordance with the extent rules the petitioner declared and recorded his date of birth in the service book in his own hand-writing as 3 1st March, 1928. He also attached a xerox copy of the school leaving certificate along with the representation, and requested for consideration of the same. It has also been stated that in the seniority lists published in different times his date of birth has been wrongly recorded, such as, 15th July, 1930, in one list, in the other it was 15th July, 1 925. It has, therefore, been stated that this , seniority list which was not even circulated in Shop No. 26, should not be taken into consideration. The petitioner has also stated that in similar cases of mistaken recording of the date of birth in the official documents, they were duly corrected on representation being made with sufficient materials. The Railway authorities having not considered the representation of the petitioner, he moved a writ application before this Court whereon this Court made an order to the following effect :

(3.) IT has been stated further that the petitioner made a representation addressed to the respondent No. 2 wherein he prayed that the documents, namely, Insurance Policies and school leaving certificate should be considered properly in determining his date of birth. This representation was made on the 11th july, 1983.