Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.R.SHAH
GOVINDBHAI M.KARSHALA - Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CORP.LTD. - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 9564 Of 1996
Decided On : 11/30/2006
Authenticity of birth certificate issued by competent authority.
Head Note :
Service & Employment - Change in date of birth - Permissible upto age of 50 years - Petitioners application submitted within 50 years of age - Two certificates one issued by school authorities and other by competent authority - Held, certificate issued by competent authorities cannot be ignored - Impugned circular set aside - Petitioner entitle to benefit of correction of date.
Held :
The GEB has no authority to doubt the correctness of the certificate and/or the contents of the said certificate. So far as the contention on behalf of the respondents that the necessary entry was made in the revenue record in the year 1969 and it continued for 24 years and the petitioner submitted an application in 1987 and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for correction of date of birth should not be considered is considered, it is required to be noted that relevant statutory regulation provides for correction of date of birth, provided the application is submitted before completion of 50 years of age. Under the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner to change the date of birth cannot be rejected on that ground.
[Para 12]
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was informed in the year 1990 that his application is rejected to change date of birth relying upon circular dated 22.05.1989 and still the same was not challenged till 1996. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 is justified in submitting that even if the date of birth of the petitioner is required to be corrected as 11.02.1940 instead of 01.12.1938, then in that case, the petitioner is not required to be paid any back wages not only the petitioner has not worked but on the ground of aforesaid delay also, he is not entitled for the back wages and at the most petitioner will be entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid two years for the purpose of other retirement benefits.
[Para 13]
Cases Referred :
Dipti Devi Dhirajlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., Special Civil Application No. 5668 of 1987;; State of Punjab vs. Mohinder Singh, AIR 2005 SC 1868;; Coal India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee & Ors., 2005 (12) SCC 201;; Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Shivalik Agro Poly Products Ltd., 2005 (11) SCC 464.
Decided in Favour of :
Appellant
Petition Partly Allowed
( 2 ) FACTS leading to the petition are that the petitioner was serving in the respondent-Electricity Board, his actual date of birth as per the record of the Nagar Palika was 11-2-1940, however, by mistake his date of birth was recorded as 1-12-1938 in the service record on the basis of the school leaving certificate. That in fact, his correct date of birth even recorded in the Births and Deaths Register maintained by the Gondal Nagar Palika maintained under the provisions of the Act was 11-2-1940 and therefore, the petitioner submitted an appropriate application dated 13-1-1987 for necessary correction in the birth date in the service record of the Board as 11-2-1940 instead of 1-12-1938, relying upon regulation 18 of the Gujarat Electricity Board Service Regulations. It is also further submitted that as per the circular dated 20th June, 1986 the extracts of Birth and Death Registration was required to be accepted as correct and final for all purposes including admission into the Government service. It is submitted that the application of the petitioner was forwarded by the Superintending Engineer (O and M), Bhavnagar to the Secretary, GEB on 21-1-1987. It is submitted that all the necessary documents were submitted to the executive Engineer. However, by communication dated 17-1-1990 relying upon the circular dated 22-5-1989, the respondent Board refused to correct the birth date and rejected the application of the petitioner. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that subsequently the petitioner has submitted an appeal on 14-2-1990. However, the date of birth of the petitioner was not corrected in the service record and therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid relief. The petitioner has also challenged the circular dated 22-5-1989.
( 3 ) SHRI SP Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made following submissions;
1]. That the circular dated 22-5-1989 should not have been made applicable retrospectively and the application of the petitioner dated 21-1-1987 ought not to have been rejected relying upon subsequent circular.
2]. That other employees, who have submitted their applications for correction/change of birth date in the service record came to be considered on the basis of the circular dated 20th June 1986 and therefore, the action of the respondent is discriminatory and violative under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3]. The circular dated 22-5-1989 issued by the GEB deciding to only c
Collector Of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs Shivalik Agro Poly Products Ltd.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.