Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 649 (MP)

Shivpal Singh Uikey v. State of M. P.

2010-07-02

R.S.JHA

body2010
JUDGMENT : Shri Rakesh Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudhir K. Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the impugned communication/notice dated 29-6-2006 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer respondent No. 2 informing the petitioner that he shall retire from service on 31-1 2-2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was working as a Mechanic Grade-I in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division I, Rani Awanti Bai Sagar Project, Bargi Nagar, Jabalpur. On 11-6-2002 the respondent No. 4 issued a letter to the petitioner directing him to submit documents certifying the date of birth of the petitioner as the same was not in his service book. In compliance the petitioner submitted a letter of the Head Master of the Government Primary School Sontalai, Tahsil Itarsi, District Hoshangabad certifying the petitioner's date of birth to be 1-7-1950 according to Sr. No. 128 of the School Admission Register. The respondent No. 4 issued letter to the Head Master of the concerned Primary School on 30-7-2002 seeking verification of the certificate in response to which the Head Master of the school issued letter dated 6-9-2002 to the respondent No. 4 certifying that the date of birth of the petitioner was 1-7-1950 according to the entries made in the School Register. On 1-10-2002 the respondent No. 4 directed the petitioner to submit a School Transfer Certificate in compliance to which the petitioner obtained the School Transfer Certificate from the Head Master of the concerned school wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was certified to be 1-7-1950. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially at the time of entering into service in the absence of any certificate the respondents have mentioned the date of birth of the petitioner to be 1-1-1947 but subsequently the respondent authorities themselves asked for and got the certificate verified issued by the concerned school and the certificate in support thereof. It is submitted that his date of birth is 1-7-1950 in spite of which the respondents treated the date of birth of the petitioner to be 1-1-1947 and issued the impugned communication although the respondent No. 4 had forwarded the service book of the petitioner to the Executive Engineer on 30-11-2002 for correction of his date of birth vide Annexure P-9. It is stated that the petitioner had filed a representation before the authority asking for correction of his date of birth and permitting him to continue in service on 30-10-2006 which was duly forwarded by the respondent No. 4 on 30-11-2006 stating therein that the date of birth has been verified from the concerned school who has certified the date of birth as 1-7-1950 and requesting the Executive Engineer to pass order on the petitioner's representation. The Chief Engineer, Rani Awanti Bai Sagar Project also recommended the case of the petitioner on 2-5-1997 for appropriate action by the respondent No. 3 but the respondent No. 3, Executive Engineer, has not passed any order thereon resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner which amounts to infringement of his fundamental right. 4. The respondents have filed their return stating therein that the service record of the petitioner records his date of birth to be 1-1-1947 and the Gradation List issued by the respondents also shows the date of the birth of the petitioner to be 1-1-1947. It is stated that the petitioner only a few days before his retirement submitted the transfer certificate claiming his date of birth to be 1-7-1950. It is stated that the claim of the petitioner is false and is based on concoction of documents and, therefore, deserve to be rejected. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From a perusal of the documents filed along with the petition, it is clear that the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the service book was 1-1-1947 but the respondent authorities themselves issued letters on 11-6-2002, 30-7-2002, 6-9-2002 and 1-10-2002 seeking for verification and certification of the petitioner's date of birth in response to which the petitioner submitted the certificate issued by the Principal of the petitioner school i.e. Government Primary School, Sonatalai wherein the petitioner's date of birth as per the school register was recorded as 1-7-1950. The respondent No. 3 the Sub-Divisional Officer got the matter verified and thereafter forwarded the case of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth on 30-11-2002 to the respondent No. 4 the Executive Engineer but no order thereon was passed by the Executive Engineer for four years and subsequently the petitioner was superannuated in 2006. 6. It is also clear from the order dated 3-11-2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer that he has forwarded the representation of the petitioner and specifically stated that he has got the date of birth of the petitioner verified from the Principal who has certified that the petitioner's date of birth is 1-7-1950 and in such circumstances appropriate orders be passed by the respondent No. 3. It is also clear that the Chief Engineer recommended the case of the petitioner but the respondent No. 3 did not take any action in the matter. 7. It is also clear from a perusal of the return filed by the respondents that the respondents have not denied the fact that the petitioner's case was taken up for verification by the SDO and that the matter was verified and finally forwarded by respondent No. 4 for correction of the date of birth. The respondents have only generally stated that the document Annexure P-1 is false and concocted which document is having no bearing or relevance to on the issue as it is an extract of the service book of the petitioner. It has not been stated that the five letters issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer are false, fabricated and concocted and no affidavit to that effect has been filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 8. In such circumstances, in view of the certificate issued by the Head Master of the School which has been duly verified by the respondent No. 4 and on being satisfied has forwarded the case of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be and is hereby allowed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the respondents shall treat the petitioner to be in service by taking his date of birth 1-7-1950 and shall also grant him all consequential benefits including recalculation of pension. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed. Petition allowed.