Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
V.K. Bist, J.
Narayan Singh Jagwan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.66 of 2006 (S/S)
Decided On : May 24, 2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3.
The date of birth recorded in the service record at the time of entry into government service should be deemed valid for all practical purposes, and pension is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
Headnote:
Date of Birth - Post Retiral Benefits - Uttarakhand Recruitment to Services (Determination Of Date Of Birth) Rules, 2003 - Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations - All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others Vs. Union of India and others - Salabuddin Mohamed Yunus Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's date of birth was recorded incorrectly in the service book, leading to a dispute over his post retiral benefits. The respondents relied on the date of birth mentioned in the Family Register, which differed from the service record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's correct date of birth, as recorded in the service record, should be deemed valid for all practical purposes, including the determination of post retiral benefits. The court held the respondents' actions as deliberate, arbitrary, unreasonable, and illegal, and directed them to release the petitioner's post retiral benefits with interest.
Issues: Dispute over the petitioner's date of birth and its impact on the release of post retiral benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The date of birth recorded in the service record at the time of entry into government service should be deemed valid for all practical purposes, and the pension is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to release the petitioner's post retiral benefits with interest. A cost of Rs. 20,000 was imposed on the respondents.
Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
“I. Issue a writ, rule order or directions in the nature of certiorari calling for records and quashing the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Adhikari dated 18.01.03 and reply letter dated 27.10.05 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent no.3 and further to quash so called exparte inquiry as alleged in the said letter.
II. Issue a writ, rule order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to release petitioner’s post retiral benefits including pension, gratuity etc. forthwith including the arrears of said benefits accrued to the petitioner from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.12.02 with 12% interest per annum and further to direct the respondents to keep on making regular payment of post retiral benefits to petitioner month by month or as and when they fall due.
III. Issue any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
IV. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that petitioner was appointed as Jeep Driver on ad-hoc basis on 01.12.1983 in U.P. Jal Nigam (now Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam). At the time of his appointment, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 22.12.1948. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Work Supervisor in the year, 1989. The correct date of birth of the petitioner is 22.12.1944. Having knowledge of the fact that his date of birth has wrongly entered in the service book as 22.12.1948, the petitioner moved to the authorities to correct his date of birth from 22.12.1948 to 22.12.1944 in his service book. The competent authority, after looking into the documents produced by the petitioner at the time of his regularization, corrected the date of birth of the petitioner as 22.12.1944 in his service book. On the basis of this corrected date of birth, the petitioner was superannuated on his completing 58 years of age. After his retirement, the petitioner submitted all required documents for release of his post retiral benefits. The petitioner also submitted a copy of the Family Register for the purpose of completing the formalities. In the said Family Register, the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly shown as 1936. Respondents, on the basis of the date of birth shown in the Family Register, withheld the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted several representations before the respondent authorities for release of his post retiral benefits. In his representation, the petitioner submitted that the said Family Register, which was submitted by the petitioner before the authorities, was issued after his retirement and it was just for the verification of the family members of the petitioner. The date of birth entered in the Family Register of the petitioner was not correct at all, as such, entry which was made on the basis of speculation cannot be looked into for the purpose of the retirement of the petitioner. It was also mentioned in the representation of the petitioner that it is evident from looking into the date of birth entries mentioned in the Family Register that the date of birth of petitioner’s son Balam Singh has been written as 1963 and date of birth of his grandson has been written as 19.06.1970, thus, the difference between the date of birth of father and son is only 7 years, therefore, such entries in Family Register are not reliable.
3. The respondent no.3 filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. He, in his counter affidavit, has submitted that at the time of entering the service, the petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 22.12.1948. The respondent no.3, after the retirement of the petitioner, for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits, enquired about the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner
