Back
2004 Supreme(All) 690
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.B.Misra
SHANKAR LAL PANDEY
Versus
VICE-CHANCELLOR ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY
Decided On : 06 April 2004
C. M. W. P. No. 17867 of 1998
A.B.L.Gaur, ANUPAM KUMAR, ARVIND KUMAR, ASHOK SINGH, M.K.Pandey, M.K.SINGH, P.S.BAGHEL, RATNAKAR CHAUDHARY, T.P.SINGH, V.K.Mishra,
The Court emphasized the need for proper evidence and consistency in claims, and suggested resorting to a trial court for adjudication of disputed date of birth, especially after retirement.
Headnote:
Date of Birth - Retirement - U. P. Recruitment to Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, - 1952 Allahabad High Court Chapter XXII - 1974 U. P. Recruitment to Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules - 1995 Supreme Court 1499; 1995 (4) SCC 172 - 1997 Supreme Court 2452 - 2001 (2) LBESR 26 (SC) : 2001 (2) E. S. C. 338 (S. C.) : AIR 2001 SC 1665 - 2001 (1) LBESR 269 (SC) : (2000) 8 SCC 696 - 2003 (2) LBESR 28 (All) : (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1602 - 1991 (63) FLR 76 - 1996 (72) FLR 562 - 1995 (2) LBESR 243 (All) : 1995 (71) FLR 950 - 2003 (1) LBESR 709 (SC) : JT (2002) 10 SC 207 - 2003 (2) LBESR 28 (All) : (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1602 - 1999 (2) LBESR 227 (SC) : AIR 1999 SC 264 - 1995 (1) LBESr 447 (SC) : (1995) 3 SCC 17 : AIR 1995 SC 1349 - 1996 (7) SCC 421 - 1993 Supp (1) SCC 763 - 1993 (2) SCC 162 - 1993 (3) SCC 624 - 1990 (2) SCC 682 - 1999 (3) SCC 614 - 2001 (2) SCC 221 - 1999 SC 565 - 1995 (3) SCC 619 - 2001 (2) LBESR 71 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 703 - 2001 (2) LBESR 6 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 1298
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a University employee, sought to change his date of birth after retirement, claiming discrepancies in his records. The respondents contested, citing previous affidavits and records. The Court noted the petitioner's inconsistent claims and dismissed the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner's claims lacked evidence and were inconsistent with previous records and affidavits. It held that the disputed date of birth could not be resolved under writ jurisdiction, especially after the petitioner's retirement.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's request to change his date of birth after retirement, based on discrepancies in his records. The Court also considered the petitioner's inconsistent claims and the respondents' contestation based on previous records and affidavits.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the disputed date of birth could not be resolved under writ jurisdiction, especially after the petitioner's retirement. It emphasized the need for proper evidence and consistency in claims, and suggested resorting to a trial court for adjudication.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was not granted any relief.
Heard Sri V. K. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. S. Baghel, learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent of the parties this writ petition is disposed of under Second proviso Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court, 1952.
In this petition the order dated 19-1-1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) has been challenged whereby the petitioner after completing 60 years of age was to retire on 31-12-1996 treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 4-12-1936. According to the petitioner he is High School pass from Board of High School and Intermediate Education Allahabad in short called board and had joined as an Assistant Librarian in year 1965 in the Allahabad University where the date of birth of petitioner was recorded in the service book as 4-12-1936 the same was at one time verified by the petitioner and the competent authority, however the petitioner continued in service without any break and was retired on 31-12- 1996. The petitioner claims his date of birth as 19-8-1942 and asserts that the name of the father of petitioner is Nankai Lal Pandey alias Kashi Prasad Pandey and both names are of his father, while entering in the service in University the name of the father of the petitioner was written as Sri Kashi Prasad Pandey, but his original High School certificate was lost which was obtained from the board in duplicate and transfer certificate from Shri Radharaman Inter College, Daraganj, Allahabad in both these
certificates procured by the petitioner the date of birth of the petitioner is 19-8-1942 and name of his father as Nankai Lal Pandey. Supplementary affidavit was also filed as Annexure 4 endeavouring to explain how his fathers name was entered in the school records as Nankai Lal and Kashi Prasad in the service records of University respectively. According to the petitioner despite repeated representations no heed was taken therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for alteration of date of birth.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. As asserted in para 10 of the counter affidavit the petitioners father name was mentioned as Kashi Prasad Pandey and not Nankai Lal Pandey in all the records of the University. In the past, petitioner had filed as many as two writ petitions as indicated below, in this Court seeking various reliefs such as, salary, promotion etc. and in all the writ petitions he has sworn affidavits showing his fathers name as Kashi Prasad Pandey. In none of the affidavits sworn by him, he had shown his fathers name as Nankai Lal Pandey or fathers name Nankai Lal Pandey alias Kashi Prasad Pandey. The earlier petitions filed by the petitioner are as under:
(i) Writ Petition No. (sic) of 1998 (ii) Writ Petition No. 3169 of 1990 (iii) Contempt Petition No. 1409 of 1994.
3. According to the contents of paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it has been indicated that the High School certificate which the petitioner has enclosed, clearly demonstrate that it was not his certificate in as much as, the name of the father has been mentioned as Nankai Lal Pandey whereas admittedly, the petitioners father name was Kashi Prasad Pandey and it is pertinent to note that the duplicate certificate of the High School Examination was issued to the petitioner on 23-5-1997 i. e. , after the retirement of the petitioner.
4. According to para 12 of the counter affidavit the transfer certificates enclosed with the writ petition reveals that the petitioners father name is not Kashi Prasad Pandey. The petitioner has shown that he passed his High School examination from Radha Raman Inter College, Allahabad and supplementary examination has been alleged to be passed from Government Inter College, Allahabad and in none of the certificates, the petitioners father name was ever mentioned as Kashi Prasad Pandey. It is significant to mentioned that the petitioner has enclosed the duplicate copy of the High School certificate, however, he has not made
