Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Md. Ziaur Rahman @ Jiaur Rahman Choudhury S/o Mafizuddin Choudhury – Petitioner
Versus
The Guwahati Municipal Corporation and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 47 of 2016
Decided On : 18-11-2024
(A) Service Rules - S.R. 8c of the F.R. & S.R. - Correction of date of birth in service records - Petitioner's claim for correction of date of birth from 29.11.55 to 22.04.1969 was rejected by the Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati, on grounds of delay and lack of supporting evidence - The court emphasized that changes to recorded dates of birth cannot be made at the end of an employee's service career and must be requested within three years prior to superannuation. (Paras 15, 23)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial review - The court reiterated that it cannot interfere with administrative decisions unless there is a clear violation of law or procedural irregularity. (Paras 15, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his request to correct his date of birth recorded in his service book, claiming it was erroneously recorded without his knowledge.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide credible evidence to support his claim and had accepted the recorded date of birth by signing his service book.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner could alter his recorded date of birth at this stage and whether the rejection of his application was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the date of birth recorded in the service book is binding unless challenged within the stipulated time frame, and the petitioner's late challenge lacked merit.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
1. Heard Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the Guwahati Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has assailed an order dated 09.12.2015, passed by the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, rejecting his prayer for correction of his date of birth as recorded in his service book.
3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under.
4. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, in the year 1985 was enrolled as a Daily Wage Labour under the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.10.1986, the petitioner, on completion of one year of continuous service, was permanently engaged as a Casual Labour on daily rated basis. The authorities of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation vide order dated 26.06.1992, proceeded to regularize the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated person as “Majdoor” on completion of 05(five) years of continuous service. The petitioner was thereafter, vide order dated 04.03.2009, granted Supervisor grade fixed pay scale. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties as a Supervisor under the Guwahati Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Secretary, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati, had issued communication dated 24.09.2015 to the petitioner and therein, it was stated that the petitioner would attain the age of superannuation on 29.11.2015 and accordingly, he was directed to hand over charge of the post held by him to the departmental head on 30.11.2015.
5. Being aggrieved by the said communication dated 24.09.2015, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting WP (C) 6739/2015, assailing the said communication dated 24.09.2015.
6. This Court, vide order dated 13.11.2015, on appreciating the materials coming on record was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati, to consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, before giving effect to the superannuation notice dated 24.09.2015. The petitioner, accordingly, on 21.11.2015, submitted his representation before the Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati and therein, enclosed documents in support of his claim with regard to his actual date of birth. The petitioner, in his said representation prayed for fixing his date of birth in his official records taking into note the documents brought on record by him.
7. The Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 05.12.2015, proceeded to dispose of the representation dated 21.11.2015, vide order dated 09.12.2015. The claim made by the petitioner in the said representation dated 21.11.2015, praying for correction of his date of birth came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.
8. Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed herein above, has submitted that the respondent authorities had in his service records, recorded his date of birth as “29.11.55” without any basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to a certificate issued by the Principal In-charge, Ramdia Higher Secondary School on 28.10.2015, has submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner in his school records was recorded as “22.04.1969.” Mr. Rahul, learned counsel has further submitted that the date of birth as recorded in his school records is also reflected in the voter’s list of 2016, containing the name of the petitioner, wherein his age has been reflected to be 44 years. Mr. Rahul, learned counsel has further placed reliance on a certificate issued by the village Head Man of village Majorkury dated 27.10.2015, wherein also the date of birth of the petitioner was denoted as 44 years by refer
The court upheld that recorded dates of birth in service books cannot be altered at the end of an employee's service, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that requests for correction of date of birth at the fag end of a career must be supported by irrefutable proof and evidence of real injustice, and....
Applications for correction of date of birth in service records can be rejected on grounds of delay and lack of irrefutable proof, especially when made at the fag-end of service.
Requests for correction of date of birth in service records made at the end of service are not sustainable unless made within prescribed time limits and with clear evidence of error.
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
