ORDER

The present writ petition is filed by Union of India being aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in O.A.

No.170/00140/2018 (Sangram Maharana Vs. Union of India and others).

2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent-

employee before this Court was appointed as Post Graduate Teacher (Commerce) at Tibetan School, Darjeeling with effect from 6.2.2003. He submitted his original documents at the time of his appointment and the said documents reflect his date of birth as 15.6.1966. While the respondent was in service, he was terminated on 28.7.2004 and he was reinstated back into service on 21.06.2010, on account of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, dated 1.8.2008. The order passed by the Tribunal at Calcutta Bench was affirmed by the High Court of Calcutta on 26.2.2010. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent-employee which again resulted in removal of the respondent-employee. Thereafter, in an appeal, the Appellate Authority imposed a punishment of reduction to some stages of pay. Meaning thereby, he was reinstated back into service. It came to the notice of the respondent-employee that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded as 15.6.1960 in stead of 15.6.1966 and he protested in the matter. He submitted representations requesting the employer to correct the date of birth in the service book. The said fact was brought to the knowledge of the employer, however, the mistake was not corrected. Finally, the request was turned down by an order dated 29.8.2017. Thereafter, the respondent-employee preferred an original application before the Tribunal in O.A. No.170/00140/2018 and the Tribunal, taking into account the school leave certificate and the other documents relating to his educational qualifications, has allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. This Court had directed the employer to produce the original record relating to the respondent-employee and the original record has been produced. The representation submitted by the respondent-employee on 30.06.2011 for correction of date of birth makes it clear that he categorically stated his date of birth as 15.6.1966 and all the certificates submitted to the employer indicate the date of birth of the respondent-employee as 15.6.1966. The only place where different date of birth has been mentioned is the first page of service book of the respondent-employee which contains his bio-data.

4. Another important aspect of the case is that the relevant pages of the service book of the respondent- employee have not been signed by the employee at all and therefore, he was not aware about the entries made in the service book at the first page. In the considered opinion of this Court, taking into account the documents brought on record, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the date of birth of the respondent-employee is 15.6.1966. It is the clerical mistake in the service book committed by the employer. As stated earlier, the service book has not been counter signed by the respondent-employee. Only because there is a clerical mistake in the first page of the service book, it cannot be held that the date of birth is

15.6.1960.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-employee has informed this Court that the Tribunal after taking into account the date of birth of the respondent-employee as 15.6.1966, has decided the matter by its order 28.9.2018.

However, the employer with a defiant attitude has passed an order against the respondent-employee retiring him from service.

6. Resultantly, this Court does not find any case for interference of the order of the Tribunal. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

7. The petitioner-employer is directed to reinstate the respondent-employee forthwith and respondent-employee shall be entitled to all consequential