Point of Law - As such, unless a clear case on the basis of clinching materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Dimple Thaker on behalf of the petitioner and learned Advocate Shri Dipak Dave on behalf of the respondents- Company.

2. By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“11A. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit this petition.

11AA. That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ or directions quashing and setting aside the circular dated 16.11.1999 passed by the Respondent Company and be pleased to declare the said circular as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

11B.That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ or directions quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.06.2019 and 17.08.2020 passed by the Respondent No.1 rejecting the request of the petitioner for changing the date of birth in the service record and that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Company to change the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record to 21.10.1963 and restrain the respondents from taking coercive action against the petitioner in any manner;”

3. Learned Advocate Ms. Thaker on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had joined employment with the respondent-Company as Helper at Talala office Sub Division in the Veraval Division on 20.03.1987. The post is now termed as ‘Electrical Assistant”. At the time of joining of the employment the date of birth as recorded in the service book of the petitioner was 21.10.1961 which was based on the School Leaving Certificate of one Coronation High School which was submitted as documentary proof.

4. It is stated by the learned Advocate that originally an application for change in date of birth in the service book was being considered in the respondent organization on the basis of Service Registration No. 18 which was published vide Establishment Circular No. 03.12.1998 which inter alia permitted the employee to request for correction of date of birth in the service record with satisfactory proof and documentary evidence upto the time when the employee completed 50 years of age. Learned Advocate has submitted that vide Circular dated 16.11.1999 the S.R. had been revised and whereas application for correction was permissible only upto the time when the employee had completed two years in the service. Learned Advocate would submit in this context that while the petitioner was in employment, services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide an order dated 06.06.1998 and whereas the same had been challenged by the petitioner before learned Labour Court and whereas vide an award dated 17.03.2016 the learned Labour Court had been pleased to reinstate the present petitioner of service with continuity but without backwages. The petitioner had been reinstated immediately thereafter. Learned Advocate submits that when the petitioner was due for promotion the year 2017, various documents had been sought for and whereas it was at that time that the petitioner realized the date of birth as mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Coronation High School as 21.10.1961 and whereas since the same was erroneous the petitioner had inquired as regards the same and had found out that since the school in which the petitioner had studied had mentioned wrong date of birth in the School Leaving Certificate, therefore, the same came to be entered into service record. According to the petitioner the petitioner had initially studied in one Limbda Pay Centre School governed by District Panchayat, Junagadh where the date of birth as recorded of the petitioner was 21.10.1963. Learned Advocate further submits that the petitioner had thereafter studied in Vivekanand Vidhya Mandir, Mangrole and it appears that for the first time the date of birth is incorrectly mentioned as 21.10.1961 and since the petitioner had left that school to join Coronation High School the same date had been mentioned by the Coronation High School. Learned Advocate submits that the petitioner had a