ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PROBODH CHANDRA HAZARIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/insurance Company in this appeal has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. (C) No. 8184 of 2005 filed by the present respondent, allowing the writ petition and directing the appellant to correct the service record of the respondent/writ petitioner in so far as it relates to the date of birth of the writ petitioner and to allow him to remain in service till he attains the age of superannuation on the basis of such corrected date of birth.

(2.) THE respondents herein filed WP (C) No. 8184 of 2005 challenging the notice of retirement dated 21. 11. 2005, issued by the Regional Manager of the appellant/insurance Company intimating him that he will be relieved from his duty on 31. 01. 2006 on attaining the age of superannuation, on the ground that his age originally recorded in the matriculation certificate, which was produced at the time of entry into the service in erstwhile Sterling General Insurance Co. Ltd. was subsequently rectified by the Gauhati University in the year 1972, which was immediately thereafter produced before the said company, who accordingly accepted such corrected age and consequently the date of birth from 1. 2. 1946 to 10. 2. 1949 and after integration of the said Company, in view of the provincialisation and taking over the assets and liabilities by the appellate Insurance Company, the corrected age and consequently the date of birth as 10. 2. 1949 has been accepted, as is evident from the seniority list of officers of the Company published from the year 1996 and also by recording such corrected date of birth in the Provident Fund account etc. , therefore, the appellant/insurance Company cannot compel the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31. 1. 2006, as he is due to retire only on 9. 2. 2009, after acceptance of the corrected age as corrected by the University authority. The learned Single Judge upon appreciation of the materials available on record as well as on hearing the learned counsel for the parties passed the impugned judgment and order and hence the present appeal.

(3.) MR. D. K. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the appellant/insurance Company challenging the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has submitted that the writ petitioner having approached the Management at the fag end of his career for correction of his date of birth in the service record that too after the appellant issued the communication dated 10. 11. 2003 asking him to let the appellant know whether any order was passed by the erstwhile Sterling General Insurance Co. Ltd. accepting the corrected date of birth, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and directed the appellant to correct the date of birth in the service record, which was admittedly not corrected earlier. It has further been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the date of birth has been recorded in the service book of the respondent/writ petitioner on the basis of the declaration made by him and such date of birth cannot be corrected on the basis of the application filed by the respondent/writ petitioner on 3. 12. 2003 i. e. at the fag end of his service career, as he is due to retire from service on 31. 1. 2006. Referring to the seniority list published by the appellant Insurance Company, in which the corrected date of birth i. e. 10. 2. 1949 of the respondent/writ petitioner has been reflected and on the basis of which the learned Single Judge has held that the appellant Company has accepted such corrected date of birth, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the seniority list published on 3. 6. 1996, 31. 12. 2001 as well as in the year 2004 contains a disclaimer that though due care has been taken to re-produce the particulars of the officers printed in the seniority list correctly from the official records, however, in case of inadvertent error the particulars as it appear in the official records shall be final and binding. In the instant case as the date of birth of the respondent/writ petitioner has been recorded as 1. 2. 1946 in the service record, reflection of the date of birth as 10. 2. 1949 in such seniority list will not give any benefit to the respondent/writ petitioner. Mr. Mishra, has further submitted that unless the date of birth recorded in the service book of the petitioner is corrected, he cannot claim the benefit of the corrected age certificate issued by the University authority, which having not been done in the present cases, the respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief.