STATE OF MIZORAM Vs. C LALKIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.8.98 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 65/ 96.

(2.) The facts briefly are that respondent herein joined Government service under the Government of Mizoram as Gram Sevak on 11.3.58 and his date of birth in the Service book was recorded as 1.3.35. Subsequently, the respondent took the HSLC examination and on the basis of the date of birth given in the HSLC examination pass certificate, the Director of Agriculture, Mizoram, corrected the date of birth of the respondent to 1.3.42. Thereafter notifications were issued showing the list of Group-A and Group-B officers who were to retire and in the said notification the date of birth of the respondent was shown as on 1.3.42. Thereafter an order dated 8.8.96 was passed retiring the respondent on superannuation with effect from 31.5.96. Aggrieved by the said order dated 8.8.96, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was registered as Civil Rule No. 65/96. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties quashed the impugned order dated 8.8.96 retiring the appellant and directed that the appellant shall be taken back in service with full service benefit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 11.8.96 of the learned Single Judge, the State of Mizoram has filed this appeal.

(3.) Mr N. Sailo, learned GA, Mizoram, submitted that under Note-6 to FR-56 which was applicable to the Government service in the State of Mizoram, the date on which a Government servant attains the age of fifty-eight years or sixty years, as the case may be, is to be determined with reference to the date of birth declared by the Government servant at the time of appointment and accepted by the appropriate authority. He submitted that it appears from the Service Book of the respondent that his date of birth was declared by him to be 1.3.3 5 at the time of his appointment and the said date of birth was accepted by the appropriate authority at the time of making his appointment. He further argued that such date of birth once accepted by the appropriate authority at the time of making appointment cannot be altered except by sanction from the Government. But such sanction was not taken by the Director of Agriculture, Mizoram, while altering the date of birth of the respondent in the Service Book from 1.3.35 to 1.3.42. He further submitted that it has been held in Union of India-Vs-C. Rama Swamy, AIR 1997 SC 2055, that such date of birth of the Government servant as declared by him at the time of appointment and accepted by the appropriate authority cannot be altered under the rules subsequently by taking into account any other material. He further argued that if the date of birth of the respondent is taken to be 1.3.42, as claimed by him, then he would be only 16 years few months when he was appointed to the Government service on 11.3.58 and under the relevant rules in force at the time of appointment, a person was eligible for appointment in Government service only after the age of 18 years, i.e. the age of majority in India.