1999 Supreme(Guj) 191
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.R.VYAS
S.K.SIMPI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 3931 of 1994
Decided On : 04/15/1999
Headnote:Service - Date of birth - Alteration - Petitioner has applied to change his date of birth from 4.3.1936 to 14.5.1938 - Respondent rejected it on ground of inordinate delay - Court considering the fact that petitioner is armed with sufficient materials showing 14.5.1938 being the date of birth, he is entitled to change & consequential service benefits - His valid claim can never be over looked on ground of delay.
Thus considering the matter from this angle viz. that the petitioner is armed with sufficient materials showing 14.5.1938 being his date of birth, he is entitled to be retained in service till he reached the age of superannuation counting the period from the same date of birth. This is the just and valid date of birth and this can never be overlooked on the ground of delay. It is therefore held that the petitioner is born on 14.5.1938 and therefore, the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner on 31.3.1994 is illegal and bad in law. The petitioner is entitled to serve till 31.5.1996. I think he has not retired with effect from 31.3.1996 with all wanted benefits available to him. Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner fairly conceded that the petitioner will not claim any promotion or any benefit arising out of the promotions that may have been granted between 31.3.1994 and 31.5.1996.
[Para 9]
( 1 ) ). The petitioner who was serving as Under Secretary to government, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to change his date of birth from 4-3-1936 to 14-5-1938 and to give all service benefits as would accrue to him.
( 2 ) ). In order to understand the grievances of the petitioner, certain facts are required to be stated. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk with effect from 15-6-1959 in the erstwhile Bombay State. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted the certificate of his age, nationality and domicile etc. issued by the Additional Chief presidency Magistrate, Bombay, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 14-5-1938. Apart from this the certificate, it appears that the petitioner also produced Secondary School Certificate wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 4-3-1936. On the basis of the Secondary School certificate, in the service record, his date of birth was recorded as 4-3-1936.
( 3 ) ). The petitioner, for the first time moved the respondent-authorities on 6-7-1990 stating that his date of birth is wrongly recorded in the Secondary School certificate as 4-3-1936. The petitioner submitted a copy of the certificate issued by taluka Mamlatdar as extracts of the Birth and Death Register in which it is stated that the date of birth of his elder brother Shri B. K. Simpi as 18-2-1936 and the date of birth of the petitioner as 14-5-1938. The petitioner pointed out that physically, it is impossible for the petitioner to be born 14 days immediately after his elder brother. It was submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner and B. K. Simpi are not twins. The petitioner along with the said representation also produced all the original documents viz. extracts of the Birth and Death Register issued by the Taluka Magistrate, Secondary School Certificate, domicile certificate and extracts from the Birth and Death Register in respect of his elder brother Shri B. K. Simpi. It is to be noted that the elder brother of the petitioner Shri B. K. Simpi was also serving as Private Secretary to the Legal secretary and in his service records, the date of birth was entered as 18-2-1936. Said representation was rejected vide letter dated 15-11-1990, copy of which is at annexure C to the petition. The petitioner made a further representation to the respondent-authorities on 6-12-1990 to the Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Cooperation and Rural Development Department requesting the authorities to take appropriate decision taking into consideration all relevant facts like the extracts from the Birth and Death Register, Secondary School Certificate and the obvious fact that the petitioner could not be born 14 days after his immediate elder brother, vide Annexure-D to the petition. It appears that the State Government went deep into the matter by asking the petitioner vide letter dated 5-2-1991 to supply further information like whether the petitioner was of the requisite age when he joined the primary school, whether he had attained the appropriate age while appearing in the secondary School Examination and University Examinations, whether he was eligible for joining the Government service and if he was eligible what was the age-limit at that time etc. The petitioner was also called upon to explain as to why he did not apply for change in date of birth within the specified time. The petitioner has produced said letter dated 5-2-1991 vide Annexure-E to the petition. The petitioner after collecting all the requisite information asked for by the government submitted his reply on 20-5-1992 vide Annexure-F to the petition. Since many documents supplied along with the reply dated 20-5-1993 were in kannada language, Government of Gujarat on their own called for the English version of the documents from the original authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that the English version of the information sought for