Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Ramani Kanta Sarma, S/O. Lt. Dharanidhar Sarma – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Deptt. Of Inland Water Transport And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/1659/2017
Decided On : 25-07-2024
SUPERANNUATION - CHALLENGE TO DATE OF BIRTH RECORD - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court examined the petitioner's claim regarding premature retirement due to an alleged error in the recorded date of birth in his Service Book. It highlighted the legal obligation of the department to verify such records periodically and the implications of raising such issues at the end of service. The court referenced established legal precedents that discourage late claims for corrections in service records, emphasizing the need for timely objections to avoid disruption in public service. The court concluded that the petitioner's claim lacked merit due to significant delay and upheld the recorded date of birth.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged his premature retirement based on an alleged incorrect date of birth recorded in his Service Book, claiming it should be 01.04.1958 instead of 01.04.1957. He argued that the error was due to the department's failure to verify records periodically and that he only became aware of the issue shortly before his retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the date of birth recorded in the Service Book was accurate and had been verified by an officer. It noted that the petitioner failed to raise objections in a timely manner, as required by established legal principles, and that the delay in raising the issue was detrimental to his claim.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could successfully challenge the recorded date of birth in his Service Book at the end of his service, and whether the delay in raising the issue constituted a valid ground for dismissal of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that requests for correction of date of birth in service records made at the fag end of service are generally not sustainable. It emphasized the importance of timely objections and the potential impact of such corrections on public service and other employees.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, affirming the recorded date of birth and the decision regarding the petitioner's retirement, while directing the payment of pension from the date of release from service.
JUDGMENT :
The issue which has been raised in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertains to a challenge concerning the date of superannuation of the petitioner. The primary contention of the petitioner is that based on an incorrect recording in his Service Book, he has been prematurely retired from service.
2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was initially inducted in the services of the Inland Water Transport vide an appointment letter dated 20.11.1982 as a Lightman. It is contended that thereafter he was promoted to the post of ‘Laskar’. The petitioner was furnished with a notice dated 27.12.2016 by which his date of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation was informed as 31.03.2017. It is the contention of the petitioner that his date of birth should be 01.04.1958 as per the School Certificate which the petitioner has enclosed with the writ petition. Accordingly, a representation was made which was duly forwarded to the Directorate of Inland Water Transport on 18.01.2017. It is the contention that no action whatsoever was taken on the said representation. Accordingly, the instant petition has been filed.
3. I have heard Shri P.S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, IWT who has filed the affidavit-in-opposition on 26.04.2017.
4. Shri Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the School Certificate issued by the Head Pandit, Raitkuchi L.B.M.V. School of Kamrup District dated 25.01.1982. It is contended that as per the said certificate, the age of the petitioner was stated to be 14 years 10 months as on 01.02.1973.
5. The learned counsel submits that deducing the date of birth from the said certificate, the same comes to 01.04.1958. However, by the impugned action, the service of the petitioner has been sought to be reduced by one year. The learned counsel has also emphasized on the aspect that though the Department is under an obligation to have the Service Book verified at least once in 5 years, the same was not done, as a result of which the petitioner was not even aware as to the particulars of the date of birth recorded in his Service Book. It is submitted that the petitioner did not have any role in such recording of the date of birth which has been done by some Officer and because of the error, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing the attention of the Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed on 11.07.201, more particularly the Annexure A therein has submitted that while the initial notice dated 27.12.2016 had specified his date of superannuation as 31.03.2017, by the said enclosure dated 29.04.2017, the petitioner was released on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017. It is submitted that the respondent Directorate is not even certain about the date of birth which would indicate that the recording of the date of the birth in the Service Book of the petitioner cannot be held to be free from any error. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Port Trust vs. Hymanshu International reported in AIR 1979 SC 1144 whereby it has been laid down that the respondent-State should not take up technical issues to defeat substantial justice.
7. Per contra, Ms. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel has strenuously opposed the writ petition and the relief claimed. By producing the original Service Book of the petitioner along with other documents relating to his service, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no ambiguity in the date of birth recorded in the Service Book which is 01.04.1957. She submits that the said recording was done in accordance with law and there is no overwriting or correction of any nature and rather there is an endorsement of the officer who had recorded such date of birth after verification of the materials on record. She has al
The principle that corrections to the date of birth in service records cannot be entertained at the end of a government employee's service unless there is clear and irrefutable evidence of error, and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for irrefutable proof and timely requests for correction of date of birth in service records, as well as the limitations on seeking....
A government servant can seek correction of the date of birth in service records based on irrefutable proof despite any absence of explicit limitation, as long as the request is made without unreason....
Requests for correction of recorded date of birth at the end of service are usually unsustainable due to delay and must meet strict procedural requirements.
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
