KRISHNA GOPAL JOSHI Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD PHALODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner entered the service of the Municipal Board, Phalodi in the district of Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") as an Accounts Clerk on April 8, 1954. THE date of birth of the petitioner as entered in his service book was August 31, 1919. THE petitioner continued to work in the service of the Board as an Upper Division Clerk and subsequently as officiating Executive Officer of the Board. According to the petitioner, an anonymous complaint was made against him before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi on September 13, 1972 on which the aforesaid officer made an inquiry and as a result thereof he came to the conclusion that August 31, 1919 was the correct date of birth of the petitioner and further that there was no reason to doubt the entry made in respect thereof in the service record of the petitioner. A copy of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi dated Decembers, 1972 rejecting the complaint filed in this respect has been produced as Ex. 1.

(2.) THE petitioner however, received an order from the Chairman of the Board on December 16, 1972 to the effect that he was retired from the secvice of the Board from that very day, as he had attained the age of superannuation. THE petitioner's case is that if the date of birth of the petitioner, as entered in his service record, was taken into consideration then the petitioner would have attained the age of Superannuation, namely 55 years, on August 31, 1974 and he could not have been superannuated on December 16, 1972. THE petitioner made a representation in this respect to the Board. THE Board in its meeting dated January 5, 1973 directed the petitioner to produce his Matriculation certificate. A suggestion, made by one of the members of the Board in the aforesaid meeting that the petitioner may be allowed to produce any other evidence that he may like to produce in respect of his date of birth, was not accepted. As the petitioner was unable to produce a copy of his Matriculation certificate, the Board by its subsequent resolution dated November 30, 1973 confirmed the order passed by the Chairman of the Board on December 16, 1972 accepting the date entered in the School Leaving Certificate namely, October 1, 1917 as the correct date of birth of the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that the writ petition, as originally presented in this Court, did not challenge the last mentioned order passed by the Board on November 30, 1973, but it was subsequently amended and the order passed by the Chairman of the Board dated December 16, 1972 and the resolution passed by the Board dated November 30, 1973 both are now sought to be quashed in this writ petition.

(3.) IN Poosa Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (2) this court observed: - "a government employee has a right to continue in service untill he attains the age of superannuation or is compulsory retired or his services are terminated in accordance with the contract of service or the relevant rules or he is removed or dismissed from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the constitution after following the prescribed procedure. The aforesaid right of the employee cannot be lightly interfered with by any official in whose custody or control his service record is kept and the practice of altering the date of an employee behind his back and without notice to him and even without putting the signatures or initials of the person making the correction or interpolation in that entry, as has been done in the case of the petitioner, must be highly deprecated. If there is any plausible basis, then the authority concerned can effect an alteration or correction in the entry relating to the date of birth of an employee after giving him prior notice and affording him an opportunity of furnishing his explanation in respect thereof. But any refixation of the date of birth of an employee cannot be made without holding an enquiry in accordance with the well established principles of natural justice".