Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Rekha Borana, J.
Punam Chand Rawal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1420/2016
Decided On : 27-06-2022
Date of Birth - Superannuation - 05.10.1950 - 31.10.2010 - 23.07.2015 - The court discussed the relevance of various documents related to the petitioner's date of birth and concluded that the date of birth entered in the first register of admission of the school, i.e., 05.10.1950, should be relied upon. The court also referred to the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih and held that it would be harsh to seek recovery of the CPF amount from the legal representatives of the petitioner after his demise.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was directed to be declared superannuated w.e.f. 31.10.2010, and the recovery of extra CPF paid to him was ordered. The petitioner challenged this order after his demise, and his legal representatives were taken on record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's date of birth was recorded differently in various documents, but the date of birth entered in the first register of admission of the school, i.e., 05.10.1950, should be relied upon for superannuation. The court also concluded that seeking recovery of the CPF amount from the legal representatives of the petitioner after his demise would be harsh.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of documents related to the petitioner's date of birth and the recovery of CPF amount after the petitioner's demise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the date of birth entered in the first register of admission of the school as the most relevant and reliable document. Additionally, the court referred to the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih and held that seeking recovery of the CPF amount from the legal representatives of the petitioner after his demise would be harsh.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petition, quashing the order to the extent it directed for the recovery of the CPF amount already paid to the petitioner for the period of 31.10.2010 to 23.07.2015.
JUDGMENT
Rekha Borana, J. - The present petition has been filed against the order dated 23.07.2015 whereby the petitioner-Punam Chand Rawal has been directed to be declared to be superannuated w.e.f. 31.10.2010 and it has been directed that the amount of extra CPF paid to him would be recovered.
2. At the outset, it is relevant to submit that during pendency of the present writ petition the petitioner-Punam Chand Rawal had expired and his legal representatives were ordered to be taken on record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 26.12.1990 with the respondent-Devsthan Department and at the time of appointment, his date of birth in the record was recorded to be 05.10.1959 which was based on the "Janmpatrika" submitted by him. On 01.10.2011, a complaint by one Arvind was filed with an averment that the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.10.1950 and not 05.10.1959. On the complaint being received, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to submit the relevant document pertaining to his date of birth. No response to the said notice was filed by the petitioner and therefore, an explanation was called from the school of the petitioner. Vide communication dated 02.09.2011, an explanation was submitted by the school authorities along with a copy of the first admission register whereby the date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 05.10.1950. In view of the explanation as submitted by the school authorities and in view of the fact that no response was filed on behalf of the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice, order dated 23.07.2015 was passed by the respondent-authorities whereby he was declared to be superannuated w.e.f. 31.10.2010. It was also directed that the CPF amount paid to the petitioner for the period of 31.10.2010 to 23.07.2015 would be recoverable from him. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioner has filed the present petition.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the document as submitted by the school authorities was itself not reliable as there are certain discrepancies in the same. It has been pointed out that in the said register the caste of other students was mentioned whereas that of the petitioner was not mentioned which makes it unreliable. He further argued that an application was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent authorities specifically stating that he never went to school and was illiterate. Counsel therefore submitted that in view of the said fact any document of any school is totally uncalled for and cannot be related to the present petitioner.
5. Counsel further submitted that after the application being submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities called for certain documents from him and in pursuance to the same he submitted both the documents as required. A perusal of the said documents shows that the date of birth as mentioned by him was correct and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the first response whatsoever was submitted by the petitioner only after the impugned order being passed by the respondent authorities. Before the said order being passed, the petitioner did not file any reply to the show cause notice and therefore, the respondent authorities had no other option than to pass the impugned order. Counsel further submitted that the fact as stated by the petitioner in the application that he is illiterate stands totally contrary to the entry in the service record of the petitioner wherein it has clearly been mentioned that he was 5th class fail. Counsel therefore submitted that the document being a signed document by the petitioner himself and an essential part of the service record cannot be said to be unreliable.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. A bare perusal of the record shows that firstly the ground taken by the petitioner that he is illiterat
The most relevant and reliable document should be relied upon for determining crucial facts such as date of birth, and seeking recovery of amounts from legal representatives after the demise of the c....
An employee cannot be denied remuneration for work performed due to a clerical error regarding the date of birth, as it constitutes unconstitutional begar under Article 23 of the Constitution.
Tampering with age records to gain employment advantage invalidates claims to continued service; retirement at correct age does not breach natural justice.
Service - Retirement benefits - Not entitled for - Petitioner appears to be not bona-fide and a wrong doer cannot claim the privilege of his own wrongful conduct and it will be wholly unjustified one....
The original date of birth recorded in a government employee's service book is deemed correct for all purposes, overriding any subsequent alterations.
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....
The court upheld the validity of the retirement order based on the petitioner's admission of tampering with his date of birth, affirming that no hearing was required under these circumstances.
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
