MANTU RAM TALUKDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTERVENTION of this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction has been sought for by the petitioner, who, on the face of his date of birth as recorded in his service book is scheduled to retire today i.e. 31.07.2012 from service. The parties have exchanged their pleadings and, therefore, this petition is being disposed of finally by this adjudication.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. IH Saikia, Advocate assisted by Ms. S Kanangoe, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. B Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railways, Maligaon, Guwahati for the respondents.

(3.) MR. Saikia has urged that it is evident from the transfer certificate dated 07.11.1979 that had been submitted before the respondent authorities at the time of his entry in service as Gangman/Trackman on 17.11.1982 that his date of birth was 31.07.1962. According to him, in the last part of 1986, he came to learn for the first time that his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 31.07.1952, whereafter, immediately, he submitted representations on 01.12.1986, 03.08.1987 and 24.06.1996 seeking the remedial intervention of the authorities concerned to restore his correct date of birth i.e. 31.07.1962. Mr. Saikia, has, therefore, urged that the petitioner cannot be held liable for any delay in his response for the correction of his date of birth as alleged by the Railways. Referring to Rule 225 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume I (for short hereafter referred to as the Code) and the Railway Board's letter dated 03.12.1971 referred to hereinabove, the learned counsel has maintained that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ceiling of 3 years is inapplicable and that having regard to the unimpeachable proof of his date of birth to be 31.07.1962, the respondents ought to have acceded to his request. According to Mr. Saikia, no such exercise on the basis of the certificate was undertaken on the plea of bar of 3 years. He further urged that the learned Tribunal also fell in same error while rejecting the petitioner's challenge to the impugned decision of the respondent authorities of retiring him from service on the basis of his wrong date of birth i.e. 31.07.1952. According to Mr. Saikia, the petitioner being a literate staff, he, in terms of Rule 225 of the Code, ought to have been permitted to record his date of birth in his own hand and he having been denied that opportunity, the plea taken by the respondents in contravention of his claim of his correct date of birth to be 31.07.1962 is clearly untenable in law. Mr. Saikia, in endorsement of his contentions relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. UP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 80.