Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 570 (GAU)

Umesh Debnath v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2008-08-05

KETULHOU MERUNO

body2008
JUDGMENT K. Meruno, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. Mr. C. Baruah, learned Senior Counsel submits that the case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Work Charge Mechanic in the PWD, Arunachal Pradesh on 01.07.1980 at Jairampur and after 19 years of service at Jairampur, he was transferred to Changlang PWD Division. After few years of his transfer to Changlang, PWD, the petitioner made a query about his retirement and came to learn that only 5 years left for his retirement and that his age has been recorded in the Service Book as 18.06.1952 on the basis of the presumptive age noted by the doctor i.e. the higher side in his physical fitness certificate and not on the basis of the School Leaving (Transfer) Certificate furnished by the petitioner at the time of appointment and the same is not available in the record. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for correction of his age furnishing once again his School Leaving (Transfer) Certificate supported by affidavit. The Superintending Engineer, Jairampur PWD Circle refused to correct the age of the petitioner on the plea of impermissibility of correction at this stage. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a notice/representation on 07.11.2007 to the respondents but nothing has been done to consider his prayer and to correct the age of the petitioner recorded in the Service Book. Having no other alternative, the petitioner filed this instant writ petition before this Court for ends of justice. 4. Counter on behalf of the State respondents has been filed. In Para 5 of the said counter, the respondents have denied that at the time of initial appointment, the petitioner has submitted School Certificate at all, rather he submitted Medical Certificate based on which the date of birth has been recorded in. the Service Book. This has been confirmed on verification of his Service Book. 5. In Para 5 of the said counter, the respondents have denied that at the time of initial appointment, the petitioner has submitted School Certificate at all, rather he submitted Medical Certificate based on which the date of birth has been recorded in. the Service Book. This has been confirmed on verification of his Service Book. 5. Further in Para 8 of the said Counter, the respondents have stated that had the petitioner submitted the School Leaving Certificate at the time of initial appointment, there would have been no controversy on the recording of date of birth but instead he submitted Medical Certificate to accept date of birth as per Medical Certificate. In Para-10, the respondents have further stated that submission of School Leaving Certificate after a lapse of 20/25 years of service and requesting to change the date of birth is not permissible as per Govt. Rule in force and cannot be accorded to which seems only to gain some fresh advantage by the petitioner and in this view of the matter, this writ petition has no merit and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected and dismissed. 6. As ordered by this Court, Mr. Nabam, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate has produced the record pertaining to the Service Book of the writ petitioner. I have perused the Service Book of the petitioner. In the Service Book, the Medical Certificate on record shows that by his own statement, 'his age, according to his own statement is 28 years and by appearance 28 years'. In the format, where his finger prints are appended and giving his full particulars under the column date of birth, the entry made against the column of his date of birth is 18.06.1952 as per Medical Certificate and under the heading of educational qualification, the entry made as Class-IV. In the said Service Book, the petitioner has appended the finger prints impression of his five fingers and put his signature in the Bengali Script. 7. Upon perusal of the said Service Book, there is no over writing or any tempering of writing in the said Service Book of the petitioner and if his age was wrongly recorded, he could have agitated the same before the authority at the appropriate time. 7. Upon perusal of the said Service Book, there is no over writing or any tempering of writing in the said Service Book of the petitioner and if his age was wrongly recorded, he could have agitated the same before the authority at the appropriate time. However, from the representation submitted by the petitioner for correction his date of birth which is appended as Annexure-B to the writ petition bears no date and the second representation for correction of his date of birth also bears no date. However, it can be presumed to be a representation filed after 03.09.2005 as appearing in the said representation referring the letter No. CHD/WC-6/05-06/3845-46 dated 03.09.2005 while he was working as Divisional Mechanic under PWD, AP, Changlang. 8. Therefore, the Annexure-B, which is presumed to be the earlier representation was also signed by the petitioner as Divisional Mechanic, PWD, Changlang and the same can also be presumed that this representation bearing no date when he was serving as Divisional Mechanic. 9. The law on correction of date of birth is well settled by catena of cases as has been held in the case of Upen Chandra Sarmah v. State of Assam reported in 2004 (Supp) GLT 739 wherein it has been held that the delay in seeking correction would be fatal and the government servant should not be permitted to challenge the recorded date of birth in the Service Book which has been accepted by countersigning the same, at the fag end of his service career. The same view has also been held by the Shillong Bench in the case of Gladis Lamare v. State of Meghalaya and Ors. reported in 2004 (1) GLT 261. 10. The similar view has also been held by the Aizawl Bench in the case of Thangdailowa v. State of Mizoram and Anr. reported in 2004 (1) GLR 429 wherein it has been held that the correction of date of birth must be made at the earliest point of time without any cause of inordinate delay. Since the case of correction of date of birth in that case already recorded in the Service Book, which is to be agitated in the appropriate time with bonafide intension but the same was not done in the appropriate time and therefore, the correction of date of birth was rejected. 11. Since the case of correction of date of birth in that case already recorded in the Service Book, which is to be agitated in the appropriate time with bonafide intension but the same was not done in the appropriate time and therefore, the correction of date of birth was rejected. 11. In the present case, admittedly, when the writ petitioner came to learn that only 5 years of service was left for his retirement and that his age has been recorded in the Service Book as 18.06.1952, then, he agitated for correction of his date of birth. Therefore, keeping in view of the cases cited above and the law laid down with regard to the correction of date of birth, in my considered opinion, the case of the present writ petitioner is also seeking for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his service career and therefore, the law in this regard does not permit such correction at the stage of the fag end of his service career and in this view of the matter, this writ petition has no merit and the same is liable to be rejected. 12. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and hence, the same stands rejected as indicated above. 13. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.