SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(HP) 347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Lobzang Dolma, Wife of Shri. Ram Chander - Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition (Original Application) No. 1774 of 2020
Decided On : 28-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate With Mr. C.D. Negi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, Ms. Yogita Dutta, Advocate

Point of Law : The right of respondents of superannuating the petitioner on her attaining age of superannuation on basis of her date of birth certificate being 06.11.1957 is upheld.

Headnote:

Employment and Service matter - Daily wage - Correction of date of birth - Petitioner is that she was initially engaged on daily wage basis as a Beldar in year 1983 at Ganvi Construction Division, HPSEB Ltd., in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. Later on, her services were regularized. In year 1998, she was sent on deputation to then Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (Limited). She was absorbed in SJVNL in year 2012 - Petitioner obtained subsequent certificate, on the strength of which the petition has been filed, just to gain some more years in service and she concealed material and vital facts of the case at the time when the Writ Petition was filed. (Para 8)

Finding of the Court :

It is evident and apparent from above that date of birth as was entered in service record by respondent No.1 initially was on basis of the holding out made by petitioner herself on strength of Annexure RA-3. Not only this, documents which have been appended alongwith reply by respondent No.1 on one hand and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on other hand clearly demonstrates that since her initially engagement with respondent No.1 and after her absorption by respondent No.3, on several occasions in documents which have furnished/signed by petitioner, date of birth of petitioner was mentioned. This clearly demolishes contention of petitioner that she was not aware of the date of birth as it stood entered in her service record before year 2016. On contrary as it establishes fact that petitioner has not approached Court with clean hands, this Court holds that petitioner cannot be permitted to take plea that she was not aware of entries in her service record with regard to her date of birth before the year 2016, because there are plenty number of documents on record which demonstrate that petitioner herself had signed the documents in which her date of birth was mentioned as 06.11.1957. These documents/communications are much prior to year 2016.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:-

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was initially engaged on daily wage basis as a Beldar in the year 1983 at Ganvi Construction Division, HPSEB Ltd. Jeori, in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. Later on, her services were regularized. In the year 1998, she was sent on deputation to the then Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (now known as Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited) Jhakri. She was absorbed in SJVNL in the year 2012. According to the petitioner, when she entered the service of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, her date of birth was wrongly entered by the Board as 06.11.1957. This fact was not in her knowledge. In the year 2016, respondent No.2 has informed her that she would be retired in November, 2017. When she made inquiry, she came to know that her date of birth as per the service record was 06.11.1957, which was incorrect. She approached respondent No.4 to know her actual date of birth. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued birth certificate in her favour as well as certificate dated 19.03.2016, in terms whereof, as per the Panchayat record, the date of birth of the petitioner was 06.11.1965. Following this, she made a representation to respondent No.3 for correction of her date of birth. However, the respondent has not affected correction in her date of birth despite assurance given by the respondent in this regard. Accordingly, the petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondents to carry out the correction in her service record qua her date of birth from 06.11.1957 to 06.11.1965. Petitioner has also prayed that respondents be directed to allow her to continue to serve till she attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2025.

3. To substantiate her contention, the petitioner has placed on record Annexure A-1, which is her representation made to SJVNL praying for correction of her date of birth dated 30.04.2016 alongwith which she has appended birth certificate which was issued in her favour by the concerned Gram Panchayat dated 19.03.2016, as per which, her date of birth is 06.11.1965.

4. The petition has been resisted by respondent No.1-Board, inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner had joined the service of respondent No.1 on 26.10.1989 and at the relevant time, she submitted her birth certificate duly issued by Secretary Gram Panchayat, Yangpa (Bhaba) Development Block Nichar, District Kinnaur, H.P., dated 24.10.1989, Annexure RA-3, in terms whereof, the date of birth of the petitioner was 06.11.1957. On the basis of this birth certificate, furnished by the applicant, the date of birth was entered in the service record as 06.11.1957, which was duly authenticated by the petitioner by appending her signatures against the relevant column, which was evident from Annexure RA-4. Respondent No.1 has also placed reliance upon the Medical Fitness Certificate issued by Senior Medical Officer, Satluj Jal Vidyut Pariyojna, Bhabanagar dated 06.11.1989, Annexure RA-5, in which, the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 32 years. As per the said respondent, the petitioner had tendered her technical resignation from the service of respondent No.1 and was absorbed permanently in the establishment of respondent No.3 w.e.f. 29.11.2012 and a copy of order dated 24.04.2013, Annexure RA-6, in terms whereof, the technical resignation of 29 incumbents including the petitioner, whose name was at serial No.25 was accepted, the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 06.11.1957. On these grounds, the said respondent has denied that the age of the petitioner was incorrectly recorded in the service record by respondent No.1.

5. The claim of the petitioner has been resisted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also on the ground that the petitioner was trying to mislead the Court as she was fully aware that her date of birth was 06.11.1957, which was evident from the fact that in the documents which were filled in b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top