Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 84 (GAU)

R. K. Manikanta Singh v. State of Manipur

2004-02-06

D.BISWAS

body2004
D. BISWAS, J.— Writ Petitions W.P. (C) Nos. 271 of 2002 and 17 of 2003 have been filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order of this superannuation with effect from 28.2.2002 and the corrigendum dated 16.10.2001 correcting his date of birth. 2. The petitioner was working as Super-intending Engineer (IFCD) under the Government of Manipur at the relevant time. He was sent on superannuation with effect from 28.2.2002 by the order dated 6th October, 2001 (Annexure-A/9). Being aggrieved thereby, he filed the writ petition W.P.(C) No. 271 of 2002 pleading inter alia that his date of birth is 1.12.1949 and not 2.3.1944. Ac-cording to him, his date of birth i.e. 1.12.1949 has been reflected in the Service Book as well as in various Government orders and gradation lists published from time to time. He has further alleged that he has the reasons to doubt that there is manipulation of his date of birth in his service book by the private respondent No. 3, Secretary/IFC, Government of Manipur. In para-1 of the writ petition W.P.(C) No. 17/2003, the petitioner submitted that at the time of his appointment he had declared his date of birth as 1.12.1949 on the basis of High School Certificate and this was accepted and entered in his service record. The respondent State in their affidavit-in-opposition denied the allegations made by the petitioner and asserted that the petitioner's date of birth is 2.3.1944 and not 1.12.1949. 3. I have heard Mr. M. Debananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Jalaluddin, learned Government Advocate, Manipur. 4. Mr. Jalaluddin, learned State Counsel has placed the Service Book in original. At page-2 of the Service Book, against Serial No. 2, the date of birth of the writ petitioner has been written as 2.3.1944. At serial No. 10, the petitioner has put his finger impression and at Serial No. 11, he has put his signature in long hand. This shows that the petitioner at the time of entry in Government service has given his date of birth as 2.3.1944. The date of birth recorded in the service book is distinct, clear and without any sort of manipulation. It appears that the mistake crept in recording the date of birth in the gradation list published subsequently where the petitioner's date of birth is shown as 1.12.1949 and this mistake has been repeated in all other subsequent Government orders. The date of birth recorded in the service book is distinct, clear and without any sort of manipulation. It appears that the mistake crept in recording the date of birth in the gradation list published subsequently where the petitioner's date of birth is shown as 1.12.1949 and this mistake has been repeated in all other subsequent Government orders. This Court is required to find out the actual date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the service book. As stated above, the date of birth of the writ petitioner is 2.3.1944 and this has been duly endorsed by him. There-fore, his statement in para -1 in the Writ Petition (C) No. 17 of 2003 is a blatant lie. This also rules out the allegation of manipulation of his date of birth in the Service Book by the private respondent No. 3. In this connection, the report of the Director (Vigilance), Manipur conveyed by the letter dated 7th March, 2002 (Annexure-R/8) annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition is quoted below: "With reference to your letter No. 14/63/82-IFC (Pt.) dated 5.3.2002 on the above subject, I am to say that the Principal of Johnstone Higher Secondary School, Imphal vide his letter No. JHS/MISC-/6 dated 19.2.2002 as has intimated that Shri R. K. Manikanta Singh had appeared Matriculation Examination, 1960 under Roll No. 112 and passed Examination in II Division. His age as on 1.3.1960 is 16 years only and this implies that his date of birth is 1.3.1944. How-ever, in Service Book and Pay Slip, his date of birth is found as 2.3.1944. for further confirmation, a request has been made to Gauhati University in this regard and reply is still awaited. A final report will be intimated to you after re-ply is received Gauhati University." 5. The above document also shows that the petitioner passed his matriculation examination in the year 1960 under Roll No. 112 at the age of 16 and this implies that he was born in the year 1944. If we accept the petitioner's version as correct, it would appear that he had passed his matriculation examination at the age of 10 and obtained his engineering degree at the age of 19. Under no circumstances, this situation can be accepted. 6. The petitioner is a Graduate in Engineering and he is well aware of his date of birth. During the course of argument. Mr. Under no circumstances, this situation can be accepted. 6. The petitioner is a Graduate in Engineering and he is well aware of his date of birth. During the course of argument. Mr. M. Debananda, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to produce the original matriculation certificate, and he regretted his inability as the certificate is not available with the writ petitioner. The petitioner being educated and having signed the Service Book where his date of birth was recorded as 2.3.1944 is obviously trying to take advantage of the mistake that crept in government orders/gradation lists. This is highly unfair and unbecoming of a Government servant. To remove the confusion, the relevent entries in the Service Book are quoted below: "6. Date of birth by Christian Era as nearly as can be ascertained - 2.3.1944 7. Educational qualification: 1) Matriculation in 1960 in 2nd Division. 2) P. U. Sc. in 1962 in 2nd Division. 3) B.sc. (Engg.) Civil in 1967 in 2nd Division. 10. Left thumb and finger impression of (nongazetted) officer if he is not literate enough to sign his name in English, Hindi or other regional language. Little finger Ring finger Thumb Middle finger Fore finger 11. Signature of the Government servant. -R. K. Manikant Singh." 7. The above entries clearly show that the petitioner was bom on 2.3.1944 and had passed his matriculation examination in the year 1960 when he was 16 years old. The school certificate referred to by the Director (Vigilance) in his report at Annexure - R/8 also supports the view that the petitioner was born in 1944 and not in 1949, as claimed. The petition, in my opinion, is misconceived and designed to take advantage of the mistake that crept in subsequently. Not only that, the petitioner even alleged forgery on the part of the Secretary of the Department and filed a criminal case against him. This conduct of the petitioner is highly reprehensible. Mr. M. Debananda, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgments of this Court in Chhabi Deb Barma, Petitioner - Vs. - State of Tripura and ors. 2000(2) GIT 687, Tyabur Rahman, Petitioner -Vs.- State of Assam and others, 2002(1) GLT94 as well as of the Honb'le Supreme Court in Madras High Court Advocates' Association, Petitioner -Vs. Dr. A. S. Anand, Hon'ble the CJI and another, Respondents, AIR 2001 SC970. - State of Tripura and ors. 2000(2) GIT 687, Tyabur Rahman, Petitioner -Vs.- State of Assam and others, 2002(1) GLT94 as well as of the Honb'le Supreme Court in Madras High Court Advocates' Association, Petitioner -Vs. Dr. A. S. Anand, Hon'ble the CJI and another, Respondents, AIR 2001 SC970. The decisions rendered therein can-not salvage the case of the petitioner based on wrong foundation. 8. For the reasons above, both the writ petitions are dismissed and the cost is quantified at Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the writ petitioner to the Respondent State within a period of two months.