Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1788 (PAT)

Shanti Devi v. Union Of India

2007-11-21

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2007
Judgment 1. This application is filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6th October, 2006 passed by the Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner happened to be the wife of one Ram Lalit Prasad. He died in harness and petitioner was appointed as Paniwali on 15.3.1988 on compassionate ground. 3. The controversy relate to her date of birth. According to the petitioner, her date of birth is 1.10.1956 whereas according to the respondents, her date of birth is 1.10.1946. 4. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred O.A. No. 134 of 2006 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on appraisal of the materials negatived the claim of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that her date of birth is 1.10.1946. 5. Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the date of birth of the petitioner ought to have been recorded as 1.10.1956 and the finding recorded by the Tribunal is fit to be reversed by this Court. 6. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, contends that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is on consideration of materials on record which cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 7. Petitioner claims her date of birth to be 1.10.1956 based on the certificate granted by the Panchayat Sevak and the School Leaving Certificate. The Authorities had found that the Panchayat had no birth register to corroborate the certificate granted by the Panchayat Sevak. Similarly, the Headmaster of the School from where the School Leaving Certificate was produced was unable to confirm the petitioners date of birth for want of school register. To come to a positive finding, the Authority had relied on the certificate granted by the Mukhiya which shows her date of birth as 1.10.1946, interpolated as 1.10.1956, both in figure and words. The Authorities had also relied on the first medical memo issued before her appointment dated 18.1.1988 which showed her date of birth as 1.10.1946. In the seniority list issued on 3.9.1993 her date of birth has been mentioned as 1.10.1946. The Authorities had also relied on the first medical memo issued before her appointment dated 18.1.1988 which showed her date of birth as 1.10.1946. In the seniority list issued on 3.9.1993 her date of birth has been mentioned as 1.10.1946. Not only this, while appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground, there was relaxation of her upper age taking into account that her date of birth is 1.10.1946. To top it all, in the application dated 19.3.1985 filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground, she had stated that she happens to be the second wife of the deceased employee whom she married in the year 1958. If her date of birth as claimed by her is 1.10.1956, she will be aged about 2 years at the time of her marriage. 8. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid documents led the Authorities and the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1.10.1946. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal is on consideration of relevant materials which cannot be said to be perverse calling for our interference in the present application. We are of the view that on the materials available, the only view possible was that the petitioners date of birth is 1.10.1946. 9. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly.