Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. H. A. Raza and R. P. Nigam, JJ.
NAIMULLAH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Writ Petition 2518 Of 1995
Decided On : 04/12/2001
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to have his date of birth corrected in the service record and to receive salary and allowances until his retirement date, calculated using the corrected date of birth. The court found that the petitioner had produced strong evidence to support his claim that the date of birth recorded in the service record was incorrect, including a birth certificate, a medical certificate, and letters from the Commissioner of the Division and the Revenue Minister. The court also found that the petitioner had made a timely request for the correction of his date of birth, and that the State Government had failed to comply with the orders of the Revenue Minister and the Chief Minister to relax the rules and allow the correction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, sought to have his date of birth corrected in the service record. The petitioner claimed that the date of birth recorded in the service record was incorrect and that he was entitled to have it corrected. The State Government opposed the petition, arguing that the date of birth recorded in the service record was final and could not be corrected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had produced strong evidence to support his claim that the date of birth recorded in the service record was incorrect, including a birth certificate, a medical certificate, and letters from the Commissioner of the Division and the Revenue Minister. The court also found that the petitioner had made a timely request for the correction of his date of birth, and that the State Government had failed to comply with the orders of the Revenue Minister and the Chief Minister to relax the rules and allow the correction.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his date of birth corrected in the service record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to have his date of birth corrected in the service record and to receive salary and allowances until his retirement date, calculated using the corrected date of birth. The court found that the petitioner had produced strong evidence to support his claim that the date of birth recorded in the service record was incorrect, including a birth certificate, a medical certificate, and letters from the Commissioner of the Division and the Revenue Minister. The court also found that the petitioner had made a timely request for the correction of his date of birth, and that the State Government had failed to comply with the orders of the Revenue Minister and the Chief Minister to relax the rules and allow the correction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the service record and to pay him his salary and allowances until his retirement date, calculated using the corrected date of birth.
( 1 ) FACTUAL matrix, as set out in the writ petition, in short compass, is that in the year 1966, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Typist in the office of the Commissioner, Lucknow division. Lucknow. The mother of the petitioner expired in the year 1943 and his father remarried in the same year. The step mother of the petitioner, at the time of the admission of the petitioner, for the first time in Class V in Shia School, Lucknow, got recorded date of birth of the petitioner as 1. 7. 1937. In the year 1982, the petitioner came to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the Scholar Register as well as in the service record. The petitioner obtained a certificate from the Municipal Board, Lucknow on 3. 3. 1983, according to which his date of birth was mentioned as 1. 7. 1942.
( 2 ) IT has been averred in the supplementary-affidavit that in the year 1983. the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner. Lucknow Division, Lucknow, for the correction of his date of birth in the service record. The Commissioner forwarded the representation of the petitioner along with relevant documents to the Secretary, Government of U. P. , Revenue department. Lucknow, for passing appropriate orders. Even prior to that representation, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Commissioner to write a letter to Chief Medical Officer. Lucknow, to examine him and issue a certificate regarding the age of the petitioner. The Chief medical Officer examined the petitioner on 27. 9. 1984 and gave a certificate to the extent, that at the time of medical examination, the petitioner was aged about 42 years.
( 3 ) ON 1. 9. 1986. petitioner represented to the Secretary, Higher Secondary Education Board, u. P. , which was forwarded by the Commissioner, on 15. 9. 1986. In the said representation, the petitioner stated that the petitioner, who was working as Personal Assistant to the Commissioner, has applied for the correction of his date of birth entered into the High School Certificate. The commissioner also noted that the petitioner in support of his contention that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the High School Certificate, has submitted strong evidence which appears to be practicable and reasonable. Hence, his application should be considered sympathetically and a decision be taken in that regard.
( 4 ) WHEN no reply was received from the State Government on the representation of the petitioner. which was forwarded by the Commissioner, wife of the petitioner approached the minister for Revenue, U. P. with a representation. The Minister for Revenue, Government of U. P. on 19. 11. 1989, recommended the case of the petitioner for correcting the date of birth, to the chief Minister of U. P. According to the petitioner, the Chief Minister approved the recommendation of the Minister for Revenue, Government of U. P. on 27. 11. 1989. The commissioner sent several letters to the U. P. Government regarding the correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. On 10. 1 1. 1983, the Commissioner again addressed a letter to the Revenue secretary, Government of U. P. , requesting the Secretary, to inform him about the decision taken by the Government.
( 5 ) IT was contended by the petitioner that when in spite of the orders passed by the Minister for revenue, Government of U. P. and the Chief Minister, Government of U. P. , no Government order was issued on the representation of the petitioner, on 27. 5. 1994, the petitioner filed a claim petition in U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. Along with the claim petition, the petitioner annexed the following documents in support of his contention that his date of birth was 1. 7. 1942 instead of 1. 7. 1937 before the Tribunal :
(1) A-1. Photocopy of certificate of the petitioners date of birth bearing 1. 7. 1942 issued from the nagar Mahapallka, Lucknow.
(2) A-2. Photocopy of the petitioners representation addressed to the Commissioner. Lucknow division, Luck
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
