UNION OF INDIA Vs. KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having heard counsel for the petitioners, we are satisfied that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance.

(2.) THAT the respondent 'sdate of birth in the service book is recorded as 8th October, 1940 is not in dispute. That the said date has been accepted by the present petitioners is also not in dispute. On a specious plea that, in two certificates, the respondent has given different dates of birth, in our considered view, the petitioners could not have, on surmises, taken the date of birth of the respondent as 16th June, 1938. The Tribunal considered the matter in the right perspective and in paragraph 4 of the impugned order observed thus: "4. The law attaches some sanctity to the date of birth recorded in service record. The original record has been produced and perused by me. it is clear that the applicant had disclosed his date of birth as 8.10.1940, which was accepted by the authorities before providing appointment to him in the year 1964. There are catena of decisions by the Courts which lay down that the request for change of date of birth should be made without delay. There has to be irrefutable evidence to make a change of date of birth. The Courts have also condemned the practice of alteration of date of birth at the fag end of the service period. Keeping in view these principles, I am of the considered opinion that ex parte order passed by the Postal Authorities to retire the applicant on the basis of an assumed date of birth cannot be upheld. It is not known as to what was the basis to say that the applicant 'sdate of birth was 16.6.1938. Earlier, as mentioned above, the Postal Authorities entertained the objection of one Vijay Singh to the effect that the applicant was born on 8.10.1934 [as mentioned in the judgment and order of O.A. 70/89 supra]. Now, the Postal Authorities say the applicant 'sdate of birth as 16.6.1938. On what basis and from which source the Postal Authorities discovered the applicants date of birth as 16.6.1938? ' In my opinion such a conclusion on the part of the Postal Authorities, particularly after 40 years and without any definite material in respect thereof cannot withstand the judicial scrutiny. Therefore, it has to be set aside."

(3.) WE find no justification to take a view different from that of the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.