Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Nani Tagia, J.
Nitin Goba - Appellant
Versus
State Of Arunachal Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 767 of 2017
Decided On : 02-02-2021
Date of Birth - Service Matter - [Section 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Police Act, 2004] - The court discussed the petitioner's contention regarding the incorrect recording of his date of birth in the Service Book and the respondent's argument that the petitioner had accepted 30.12.1959 as his date of birth throughout his service career. The court referred to the law on correction of date of birth and emphasized that such a change sought at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during the entire service cannot be entertained. The court cited the case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department Vs. R. Kirubakaran,1994 Suppl 1 SCC 155, and highlighted the potential chain reaction and irreparable injury to other employees if such a request is entertained at the fag end of the service career of an employee. The court concluded that the delay of over two decades for correction of the date of birth is fatal to the petitioner's case and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in the Arunachal Pradesh Police, contested the recording of his date of birth as 30.12.1959 instead of 30.12.1960, which led to his superannuation. The petitioner claimed that the date of birth was incorrectly recorded in the Service Book and sought correction. The State respondents argued that the petitioner had accepted 30.12.1959 as his date of birth throughout his service career and had never objected to it being recorded as such.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been aware of his date of birth being recorded as 30.12.1959 since 1994 and had never objected to it until filing a representation barely 7 months before his retirement. The court concluded that the delay of over two decades for correction of the date of birth was fatal to the petitioner's case and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was the correction of the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the Service Book, and whether such a correction should be entertained at the fag end of the service career.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a change sought in the date of birth at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during the entire service cannot be entertained, citing potential chain reactions and irreparable injury to other employees. The delay of over two decades for correction of the date of birth was considered fatal to the petitioner's case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the delay of over two decades for correction of the date of birth was fatal to the petitioner's case.
JUDGMENT
Nani Tagia, J. - Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Sangeeta, learned Govt. Advocate representing all the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been directed against the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2017, issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (E), PHQ, Headquarter, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh vide No.PHQ/Admn/163/2014, by which order, the petitioner's date of birth has been recorded as 30.12.1959.
3. Assailing the aforesaid impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2017, the petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Constable in the Arunachal Pradesh Police on 19.04.1979. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner had submitted a School Leaving Certificate dated 28.01.1979 from Harmati Govt. Aided High School, P.O. Harmati, North Lakhimpur, (Annexure-II to the writ petition) in support of his age, wherein the age of the petitioner was shown to be 17 years 6 months on the date of leaving the school i.e., on 30.06.1978. On the basis of the certificate submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities in the service book of the petitioner entered the date of birth of the petitioner as 30.12.1959, and age on enrolment as 18 years 3 months and 19 days. According to the petitioner, at the time of his appointment, the petitioner was aged 18 years 3 months and 19 days, as highlighted in the "age on enrolment" in the Service Book and accordingly, his date of birth ought to have been recorded as 30.12.1960. However, the respondent authorities instead of reckoning the date of birth of the petitioner as 30.12.1960 for the purpose of retirement from the service has incorrectly reckoned the date of birth of the petitioner as 30.12.1959 and on the basis thereof, the petitioner has been superannuated from the service on and from 30.12.2017.
4. The petitioner contends that reckoning of his date of birth from 30.12.1959 instead of 30.12.1960 have been made, on account of interpolation made with his date of birth in his Service Book maintained by the department, which the petitioner could only come to know some time in the last part of 2016 and 2017 and, thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.04.2017 to the Director General of Police, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh for rectification of his retirement age. However, the respondent authorities by the impugned O.M dated 27.10.2017 have taken 30.12.1959 as the date on which the petitioner was born instead of 30.12.1960. The petitioner contends that his actual date of birth is 30.12.1960 and not 30.12.1959, which has been incorrectly recorded by the respondent authorities by interpolating the Service Book of the petitioner, for which, the petitioner prays for an appropriate direction to be issued to the respondent authorities for correction of his date of birth.
5. The State respondents have filed counter affidavit, wherein it is contended that, at the time of appointment of the writ petitioner, though, in the service book the date of birth of the petitioner was correctly recorded as 30.12.1959, there was an inadvertent error in recording the "age on enrolment" as 18 years 3 months and 19 days, which ought to have been 19 years 3 months and 19 days. Since the "age on enrolment" was incorrectly recorded in the Service Book of the petitioner as 1(one) year lesser than the date of birth of the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner was taken as 30.12.1959, which was the correct date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in the School Leaving Certificate dated 28.01.1979, submitted by the petitioner from Harmati Govt. Aided High School, P.O. Harmati, North Lakhimpur. Therefore, reckoning the date of birth of the petitioner from 30.12.1959, the petitioner was allowed to go on superannuation on 30.12.2017 on attaining the age of the superannuation, which, at the relevant time was 58 years. The respondents in the counter affidavit filed, also contends that the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about hi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
