Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Salil Kumar Rai, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, JJ.
Union Of India And Others – Petitioners
Versus
Nathan Singh – Respondent
Writ -A No. -7701 of 2021
Decided On : 02-03-2023
Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16, 226 - Fundamental Rules, 1956 - Retirement from service - Correction of date of birth - Petition against order passed by which application of respondent has been allowed by Central Administrative Tribunal by setting aside order retiring him from service on basis of consideration of his date of birth instead of making correction – No opportunity of hearing was given to respondent before making correction in his date of birth and retiring him on basis of amended date of birth, cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. [Para 5]
Finding of the Court: It is established position that application of principles of natural justice in decision making process of administrative body having civil consequences have been upheld - Therefore, rules of natural justice are foundational and fundamental concepts - In present case unilateral change in date of birth of respondent is having civil consequences upon respondent because same has affected date of retirement of respondent, hence thereby causing prejudiced to respondent for non-grant of opportunity of hearing before making such correction in date of birth of respondent in service record - Therefore, order of Central Administrative Tribunal is well considered and absolutely correct and need no interference by this Court in exercising of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
2. Present writ petition has been filed on behalf of Union of India against the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No.330/00278 of 2019 by which application of the respondent has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by setting aside the order dated 24.12.2018 retiring him from service on 31.03.2019 on the basis of consideration of his date of birth as 12.03.1959, instead of 20.08.1961 by making correction on 27.01.1995.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the service record, date of birth of the respondent was incorrectly mentioned as 20.08.1961 though as per medical certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad dated 12.03.1984, age of the respondent was about 25 years at the time of entering into service in the year 1984 as majdur under Garrison Engineer, Bamrauli. Therefore, the same was corrected in the service record of the respondent in 1995. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has filed time barred original application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad because as per Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the limitation for filing the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal is one year but, in the present case, the respondent has filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in 2019, though correction in his date of birth was made in 1995. It was further mentioned that correction in the service record regarding the date of birth of the respondent was well in the knowledge of the respondent and he never made any objection or representation against the same to the competent authority. It was further contended by the petitioners that under the service rule, service book is required to be shown to Government servant every year and his signature should be obtained on the same. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that it is the responsibility of the concerned Government servant that his service should have been duly verified by the competent authority. It was also submitted by the petitioners that on 30.10.2018, a seniority list of Mason HS-II was circulated by Headquarter CWE Allahabad mentioning the date of birth of the respondent as 12.03.1959 on the basis of correction made in the year 1995 and only thereafter, the respondent made representation against the correction of his date of birth to Headquarter CWE Allahabad which was duly considered and replied by letter dated 14.12.2018 stating that correct date of birth of the respondent is 12.03.1959 but the respondent has not filed any objection against the letter dated 14.12.2018 of HQCWE Allahabad nor have challenged the same before any competent authority but at the verge of retirement i.e. on 02.03.2019, the respondent has moved a representation for restraining the superannuation from service w.e.f. 31.03.2019 and also requested for necessary correction of his date of birth mentioned in the service record. But that was duly replied by the competent authority vide letter dated 06.04.2019. Thereafter, prior to his retirement, when the order dated 24.12.2018 was issued by the office of GE (AF Division) Gorakhpur, the respondent had challenged the same by filing original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad.
4. On perusal of record, it is found that in paragraph nos.4.18 and 4.20 of O.A., it was contended by respondent that no information regarding the change of date of birth of the respondent in 1995 was ever communicated by his employer nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before making any correction in his date of birth and same was intimated to the respondent by letter dated 1
Fundamental Rules, 1956 clearly provides that date of birth of Government employee can be changed only within five years of entering into service.
The correction of date of birth in the service record should not be done on the verge of retirement, and the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate carries more probative value than ....
Correction of date of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a matter of right and should not be entertained at the fag end of the career.
A public servant cannot claim alteration of their date of birth in service records at the fag end of their service career, especially after decades of acquiescence to the existing records, as such be....
Applications for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service cannot be entertained, and finality and certainty in government service matters are crucial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order cannot be quashed solely on the ground of a violation of the principle of natural justice unless prejudice is caused. Additionally, t....
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
