Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Smt. Kalyani Devi - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Ors. – Respondents
Writ A. No.67182 Of 2014
Decided On : 21-12-2023
Date of Birth - Service Book Alteration - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 - [Rule 2, Rule 3] - The court discussed the alteration of the petitioner's date of birth in her service-book and its conflict with the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974. The court highlighted the provisions of Rule 2 and Rule 3, emphasizing that the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into government service for an illiterate employee shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth for all purposes, including superannuation, and cannot be changed later on.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an illiterate woman from the Valmiki caste, was appointed as a sweeper at a government hospital. Her date of birth was initially recorded as 18.01.1963 based on a medical certificate, but was later altered to 18.01.1956 without her knowledge, hastening her superannuation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alteration of the petitioner's date of birth was illegal and without jurisdiction, as it contravened the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974. The court also held that the impugned orders were passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alteration of the petitioner's date of birth in her service-book, the application of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, and the violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory provisions of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974, stating that the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into government service for an illiterate employee shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth for all purposes and cannot be changed later on. The court also highlighted the requirement of affording the employee an opportunity of being heard before altering their date of birth.
Final Decision: The impugned orders altering the petitioner's date of birth were quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to consequential benefits, including the payment of arrears of her salary and the revision of post-retiral benefits.
JUDGMENT :
(J.J. Munir, J.)
1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 07.07.1995 passed by the Chief Superintendent, Women Hospital, Varanasi altering the petitioner's date of birth from that recorded in her service-book to 18.01.1956. The one originally recorded is 18.01.1963. Also, under challenge is an order dated 05.09.2014 passed by the Chief Medical Superintendent, Government Women Hospital, Varanasi, affirming the fact that the petitioner's date of birth, according to the medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi and recorded in her service-book is 18.01.1956. Thus, by the orders impugned, the respondents have advanced the petitioner's date of birth, originally recorded in her service-book, by as much as seven years hastening her superannuation.
2. The petitioner says that she hails from the caste known as Valmiki (a Scheduled Caste). She is illiterate and can barely sign her name in a clumsy hand. An advertisement was issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi for recruitment of sweepers at the Government Hospital, Varanasi. No educational qualifications were prescribed for the said post. The petitioner, being qualified for the post of a sweeper, applied along with others. She was appointed by the Chief Medical Officer last mentioned on 31.08.1982 and posted as a sweepress at the Women Hospital, Varanasi under the administrative control of the Chief Medical Superintendent, Government Women Hospital, Kabir Chauraha, Varanasi. The petitioner was medically examined on 18.01.1983 for ascertaining her correct age. The Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi issued a certificate, estimating the petitioner's age as 27 years on the date of her appointment. The estimation was made by the Chief Medical Officer on 18.01.1983 on a casual determination, without an ossification test. Nevertheless, in the absence of any record of the petitioner's age, such as her educational certificate or a Nagar Panchayat record, it was entered in her service-book, fixing for her date of birth, the date 18.01.1963. This determination of age was apparently made, accepting the petitioner’s assertion about it and not the Chief Medical Officer’s estimation of her age carried in his certificate dated 18.01.1963, which was considered but not accepted.
3. Much later, the same issue arose relating to certain sweepers with regard to their age, which did not concern the petitioner. Those sweepers said that their date of birth in the service record was not correctly recorded.
4. It is the petitioner's case that after consultation with the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi, it was decided that the date of birth mentioned in the service-book should be treated as correct, and, accordingly, the report of all the sweepers working under the control of the Chief Medical Superintendent, Government Women Hospital, Varanasi, was circulated by respondent No.4 on 07.07.1995. Surprisingly, the petitioner's name figured at Sr. No.9, but in the letter dated 07.07.1995 issued by the Chief Medical Superintendent, Government Women Hospital, Varanasi, her date of birth was mentioned in column No.6 as 08.01.1963. In column No.4, the year was mentioned as 1963. There is a case that some unknown person attempted to change the petitioner's date of birth from 1963 to 1956, which does not bear anyone's signatures. Thus, the actual date of birth of the petitioner was changed from 1963 to 1956 without her knowledge, consent and without affording her an opportunity of being heard. It is also said that no scientific method, like an ossification test was adopted to alter the petitioner's date of birth by dint of the order dated 07.07.1995.
5. The petitioner has come up with a case that she thought that the change notified by the order dated 07.07.1995 was the result of interpolation, because on 17.06.1998, she was put up for a fresh medical examination and her age was estimated by the Medical Superintendent as 35 years. The petitioner has pleaded a case of f
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into government service for an illiterate employee shall be deemed to be the correct date of b....
Alteration of an employee's date of birth must comply with natural justice principles; failure to provide an opportunity to contest changes leads to void actions.
The original date of birth recorded in a government employee's service book is deemed correct for all purposes, overriding any subsequent alterations.
The date of birth recorded in the High School certificate at the time of entry into government service is final for the purposes of service benefits, and no application for correction of the date of ....
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....
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
