RAM SINGH Vs. INDIAN RAILWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge herein is to the judgment passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench on 7.9.2010 in O.A. No. 721/HP/2010 declining thereby the prayer of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in his service record from 9.8.1950 to 9.8.1958 being stale and having been made at the fag end of his service career. The complaint is that the petitioner is born on 9.8.1958 and so is his date of birth entered in his school leaving certificate, Annexure P -16. Also that in the records maintained by Municipal Corporation, Shimla, his date of birth has been entered as 1.9.1958. Though he is born in the year 1958 and even at the time of his entry in Railway service, he declared his age as 19 years 4 months on 31.12.1977 in medical memo (Annexure P -15) which corresponds to the year 1958, however, the respondents establishment on its own has entered his date of birth in his service record as 9.8.1950 wrongly. He came to know on 8.6.2009 about his date of birth recorded wrongly in his service record on the circulation of list of its employees by the respondent -Management who were due for retirement during the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. Though he made a representation for correction of his date of birth in his service record, however, the respondents failed to respond thereto.

(2.) THE defence of the respondents on the other hand, in a nutshell, is that the date of birth of the petitioner has rightly been entered in his service record prepared on 27.5.1982. His service record/service book was shown to him under 'personal contact programme ' on 27.7.2007. He even endorsed the service book with the remarks that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded and that his date of birth is 9.8.1958, however, failed to take any steps for correction thereof till 18.10.2009, on which date he made a representation which was rejected on 11.5.2010 and the decision conveyed to him on the same day.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the 2nd respondent has reconsidered this matter, however, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 25.8.2010 vide order Annexure P -9. It is this order which was again assailed by the petitioner before Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No. 721/HP/2010 aforesaid, however, unsuccessfully because the act and conduct of the petitioner having remained slept over the matter for years together and approached for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his service career heavily weighed in the mind of learned Tribunal and consequently, the application he preferred, was dismissed vide judgment, Annexure P -11, impugned in this writ petition.