Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 112 (HP)

ROOP KUMARI v. STATE OF HP

2000-05-19

A.L.VAIDYA, V.K.BHATNAGAR

body2000
JUDGMENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.L. VAIDYA, J (RETD.), CHAIRMAN : - Smt. Roop Kumari was a Trained Graduate Teacher posted at Girls Senior Secondary School, Nahan, at the time of filing the present original application. Through the present application, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:- (i) That it may be declared that the correct date of birth of the applicant is 17th Bhadon Samvat 1990 corresponding to 1.9.1933 A.D. (ii) That the superannuation of the applicant on 31.8.1990 as reflected in communication at annexure A-10 may be quashed and set aside; (iii) That the applicant may be held entitled to continue in service till 30.9.1991, i.e. the age of her superannuation according to her correct date of birth with consequential reliefs including arrears of salary and other benefits for the period during which she remained out of job due to her impugned retirement; (iv) Any other relief deemed proper in the circumstances may also be granted; (v) Cost of the application may also be awarded. 2. In brief the facts involved in the present petition are that the applicant when joined her service in the Municipal Committee, Nahan, her date of birth in her service book was recorded as 17th Bhadon Samvat 1990. Thereafter her services were taken by the government and the service book maintained at that time recorded her date of birth as 17th Bhadon Samvat 1990. However, there was another entry, her date of birth had been recorded as 3rd of August 1932 (3.8.32) but this entry was crossed and cutting was attested. In the service book itself later on when bio-data of Smt. Roop Kumari Pundir, T.G.T. was recorded there were two date of birth recorded therein. It appeared originally it was recorded 17th Bhadon Samvat 1990 (1st of September 1933). This date of birth was according to the Municipal Committee record and later on date of birth was 3rd of August, 1932 which was on the basis of matriculation certificate. In this very document the entry was made on 25.8.1990 wherein it was recorded as such. "The entry t of date of birth as shown in matriculation certificate is 3rd of August,19321 has been accepted by the Secretary Education vide his letter No. Shiksha-II-kha-13-19/87, dated 22.8.1990 for the purpose of retirement". 3. In this very document the entry was made on 25.8.1990 wherein it was recorded as such. "The entry t of date of birth as shown in matriculation certificate is 3rd of August,19321 has been accepted by the Secretary Education vide his letter No. Shiksha-II-kha-13-19/87, dated 22.8.1990 for the purpose of retirement". 3. The applicant was then retired on 31.8.1990 after attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate. The applicant has pleaded that her date of birth actually as recorded in the service book from the start was 17th Bhadon Samvat 1990 Vikrami and this date in case changed to Christan era comes out to be 1st of September 1933 and as such she was to retire after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1991. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances the reliefs prayed for have been asked for. 5. The application has been contested on behalf the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the original service book of the applicant has been scrutinised. 7. The objections raised on behalf of the respondents have been two fold. Firstly it has been contended that at such a belated stage the date of birth could not be changed and secondly as per Financial Rules 7.1 the date of birth given in the matriculation certificate was final. 8. The so far as the first objection is concerned, the applicant is not asking for change in her date of birth. Her only grievance is that the Vikrami Samvat date of birth given in the service record has not been correctly changed to Christan Calendar. She has nowhere prayed for change of her date of birth recorded at the initial stage of her joining the government service. It was only as per Annexure A-9 dated 11.5.1990 where it was recorded that the applicant Smt. Roop Kumari, T.G.T was to retire on 30.9.1990. Earlier to that there was no occasion for the applicant asking change in her date of birth recorded in her service record. In the service book recorded as referred to earlier her date of birth had been recorded in Vikrami Samvat and it was only in the year 1990 that she came to know about it and thereafter she made representation which was dis-allowed. In the service book recorded as referred to earlier her date of birth had been recorded in Vikrami Samvat and it was only in the year 1990 that she came to know about it and thereafter she made representation which was dis-allowed. So in the aforesaid background it is not a case where the change in the date of birth is being asked after a belated stage as argued on behalf of the respondents. 9. As pointed out earlier apart from the entry in the service book of the petitioner there were other material on record which established that the applicant was born on 17th Bhadon 1990 Vikrami. In this behalf the date of birth certificate issued by the Municipal Committee, Nahan Annexure 1 A-1 is on record which has recorded the date of birth of the applicant on 17th Bhadon Samvat 1990. In this certificate it has been mentioned that a girl child was born to Shri Dheeraj Singh, Father. Annexure A-2 is another certificate issued by Head of the Government Girls School, Nahan which also recorded the date of birth of the applicant as 19th Bhadon 1990 Vikrami. 10. There is no doubt that in the matriculation certificate the date of birth of the applicant recorded is 3rd August 1932 as per Annexure A-3. This certificate was issued on June 10,1951. The applicant joined her service in the year 1952 as is apparent from the service book. When the applicant joined government service again the date of birth was in Vikrami era and it was only in the year 1990 as referred to earlier that her date of birth was changed as per matriculation certificate on the basis of the order passed by the Secretary Education. 11. There is no doubt that under Rule 7.1 of U.P. Financial Rules the date of birth should be declared by Christian era as far as possible, confirmatory documentary evidence such as matriculation certificate, municipal birth certificate and so on be relied upon. It is correct that when applicant joined service she had already passed matriculation. Her date of birth was recorded in Vikrami Samvat and not in Christian era. For this lapse the applicant could not be held responsible. In such circumstances it is the appointing authority which should confirm this fact from the educational certificate or certificate from the municipal committee at the time of appointment. Her date of birth was recorded in Vikrami Samvat and not in Christian era. For this lapse the applicant could not be held responsible. In such circumstances it is the appointing authority which should confirm this fact from the educational certificate or certificate from the municipal committee at the time of appointment. It was for the appointing authority to have verified this aspect at the time of joining of the service by the applicant. For the sake of repetition it may be pointed out that the appointing authority tried to correct this alleged error at the fag end of the service career of the applicant i.e. in the year 1990 and prior to that the service record kept by the respondents recorded the date of birth of the applicant to be 17th Bhadon 1990 which corresponding to 1st of September,1933. 12. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances present in this case it cannot be said that the date of birth recorded in the municipal certificate could not be correct date of birth of the applicant. Had the municipal certificate being relied upon at the time of joining service by the applicant was not relied upon by authorities and Christian era date of birth as per matriculation certificate was entered in service record, the applicant at that time could ask for change within the prescribed period. In the present case it was not so gone. 13. No other point has been stressed. 14. In view of the foregoing reasons the present application is accepted and as a consequence thereof the date of birth of the applicant is fixed as 17th of Bhadon 1990 BAK corresponding to 1st of September 1933. The respondents are directed that on the basis of the aforesaid date of birth of the applicant her superannuation date be calculated and till that date the applicant shall be deemed to be in service and she would be entitled for every consequential benefits as per rules. The parties are left to bear their own costs. -