JAG PARSHAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.8.2012 (Annexure. P16) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (respondent No. 5) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby O.A. No. 291/PB/2012 filed by him against the order dated 24.1.2012 (Annexure-P.10) rejecting his representations for correction of his date of birth from 22.10.1952 to 14.5.1964 has been dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 to 4 to correct the clerical mistake in his date of birth from 22.10.1952 to 14.5.1964. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had been given appointment on compassionate ground in the Railways Department in place of his father who died in 1970. It is the case of the petitioner that in the medical memo, in the service book and the certificate attached with his appointment papers, the date of birth of the petitioner had been shown as 14.5.1964, however, due to clerical mistake occurred in the office, his date of birth had been recorded as 22.10.1952. When in the year 2004, the mistake came to his notice and he represented against the same, he again submitted another representation on 14.5.2010. Vide letter dated 24.1.2012 (Annexure-P.10), respondent No. 2-General Manager, Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi had rejected his request while relying upon instructions dated 19.11.1990.

(2.) On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that as per Rule 225 of Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume I (hereinafter referred to as 'Establishment Code'), date of birth is to be recorded by a senior railway servant and witnessed by another railway servant and date of birth so recorded in the record shall be binding and no alteration of that date shall ordinarily be permitted subsequently. It is also the case of the respondents that the request of the petitioner had already been rejected vide orders dated 14.7.2007 and 21.5.2008 and these orders had attained finality and photo copy of his service-book annexed by the petitioner was not a true photo copy of his service book.

(3.) We have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.