BHAGAT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by Bhagat Singh, Plaintiff against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh dated August 12, 1985, whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed and judgment and decree of the trial court was affirmed. The trial court had dismissed the suit filed by him for declaration and for the grant of permanent injunction, on August 29, 1983. The appeal was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal in view of the provisions the Administrative Tribunal Act. Subsequently, the Tribunal returned the same inter alia holding that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. In the meantime, Regular First Appeal No. 469 of 1986 had been admitted to D. B. and this appeal was ordered to be heard along with the aforesaid first appeal. That is how the appeal is before this Bench.

(2.) BHAGAT Singh, plaintiff, joined the Ordnance Cable Factory at Chandigarh as a Driver in the factory. In the service-book prepared, his date of birth was recorded as 14-8-1923. Subsequently, when he came to know that his actual date of birth was 10 1-1929, he moved General Manager of the factory for correction of his date of birth. Vide order dated 16-7-1981, the said request was turned down by the; General Manager. Bhagat Singh has studied upto 7th Class in a School in his village, Shan, District Fatehpur (U. P.) in the year 1944. Thereafter he started helping his father who was running a tailor shop. When he joined service in the factory, no effort was made to obtain School Leaving Certificate to give the correct date of birth. Subsequently, when such a certificate was obtained, the defendant was moved for correction, No opportunity was given to the plaintiff before his request was turned down. If his correct date of birth had been recorded, he would have served in the factory for a period of six more years. Thus, he claimed declaration that order dated 16-7-1981 was illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, He also sought , decree for permanent injunction that he should not be retired before the due date of his superannuation and the defendant be directed to correct his date of birth.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendant-Union and another inter alia alleging the correct date of birth of the plaintiff was recorded on his own statement in the service-book as 14-8-1923. There was no reason to change it to January 10, 1929. The suit was alleged to be barred by time. The plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit. The following issues were framed in the suit :