Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 934 (GAU)

Asheshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. v. Food Corporation of India and Ors.

2014-10-21

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2014
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Roy, learned senior standing counsel, FCI appearing for the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners numbering 5(five), have prayed for a direction to the respondents Corporation to correct their dates of birth in the Service Books and then to allow them to continue in their services till attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of the corrected dates of birth. Ms. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that since during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have already attained the age of superannuation, they are no longer interested in this proceeding and thus, the writ petition confines only to the grievance raised by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 2. According to the said 2(two) petitioners, their respective dates of birth being 20th October, 1954 and 18th February, 1965, they could not have been made to retire prematurely on the basis of the purported recorded dates of birth, which are 25th February, 1953 and 18th February, 1956. If the date of birth of the petitioner No. 1 is taken as 25th February, 1953, he has already attained the age of superannuation on 28th February, 2013. Similarly, taking into account the date of birth of the petitioner No. 2 as 18th February, 1956, he will reach the age of superannuation on 28th February, 2016. On the other hand, if the dates of birth as have been claimed the petitioners are to be reckoned as 20th October, 1954 and 18th February, 1965, then the petitioners would attain the age of superannuation on 31st October, 2014 and 28th February, 2025, respectively. 3. The petitioners in support of their claim have referred to the Annexure-1 certificate (photocopy and not very legible) purportedly issued by the Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samitee certifying the date of birth of the petitioner No. 1 as 20th October, 1954 and having passed the Madhyamik Pariksha in 2nd division. As per the certificate, the examination was held in March, 1970. As regards the petitioner No. 2, he has placed reliance on the certificate dated 21st April, 2008 (also a photocopy and not very legible) purportedly issued by a department of the Government of Bihar. As per the certificate, the examination was held in March, 1970. As regards the petitioner No. 2, he has placed reliance on the certificate dated 21st April, 2008 (also a photocopy and not very legible) purportedly issued by a department of the Government of Bihar. As per the said certificate, his date of birth is 18th February, 1965 and the certificate was issued on the basis of the registration made on 21st April, 2008. The said certificate being of 21st April, 2008, it appears that the certificate was issued immediately on registration on 21st April, 2008. 4. Based on these above 2(two) documents, the petitioners have claimed their dates of birth as 20th October, 1954 and 18th February, 1965, respectively. On the other hand, it is the stand of the respondents that when the services of the 2(two) petitioners had been regularized with effect from 1st January, 1994, their respective dates of birth were recorded as 25th February, 1953 and 18th February, 1956 in service documents. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that when the services of the petitioners had been regularized with effect from 1st January, 1994 and the documents such as superannuation register, GSLI's Contribution etc. were prepared on 24th January, 1995 and 22nd March, 1995, their respective dates of birth were recorded as 25th February, 1953 and 18th February, 1956. The affidavit further states that when the petitioner No. 1 joined the FCI in the year 1984, he declared his name as Shri Sia Singh and not as Asheshwar Prasad Singh, as mentioned in the writ petition. However, subsequently he had sworn an affidavit before the Judicial Magistrate, Silchar on 7th April, 1993 stating inter alia that he is also known as Asheshwar Prasad Singh. In the said affidavit, the petitioner indicated his age as 38 years and if that be so, his date of birth would be 7th April, 1955 and not 20th October, 1964. 6. Referring to the certified standing order of the FCI, it has been stated that the date of birth of a workman once entered in the service card of the establishment shall be the sole evidence of his age in relation of matters pertaining to his service including fixation of his date of retirement. 6. Referring to the certified standing order of the FCI, it has been stated that the date of birth of a workman once entered in the service card of the establishment shall be the sole evidence of his age in relation of matters pertaining to his service including fixation of his date of retirement. As per the said certified standing order, cases where date of birth of any workman had already been decided on the date of issuance of the standing order, the same should not be reopen. As per the requirement of the said standing order, all formalities regarding recording of date of birth shall be finalized within 3(three) months of the appointment of the worker. 7. Referring to the above standing order, while it is the stand of the respondents that when by the aforesaid 2(two) documents, i.e. superannuation register and GSLI’s contribution, the respective date of birth of the 2(two) petitioners stand finalized, there is no scope to alter the same and that too just at the verge of superannuation age of the petitioners. 8. The petitioners have filed their reply affidavit to the aforesaid counter affidavit. On being pointed out that the aforesaid stand of the respondents has not been specifically dealt with, the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that irrespective of such a position when other documents annexed to the various affidavits filed in this proceeding would go to show that in fact the petitioners' dates of birth are 20th October, 1954 and 18th February, 1965, the respondents are bound to accept the same towards continuance of the service of the petitioners till such time they attain the age of superannuation on that basis. In the reply affidavits filed by the petitioners, they have brought on record certain documents to show that the respondents have agreed to alteration of the dates of birth in respect of some of the workers leaving aside the case of the petitioners. 9. The petitioners have also referred to the letter dated 1st September, 2011 of the Area Manager, Silchar addressed to the Assistant General Manager (V&S), FCI, stating therein that the date of birth of the petitioner No. 1 is 20th October, 1954. It will be appropriate at this stage to refer to the relevant portion of the said letter to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard:-- "2. It will be appropriate at this stage to refer to the relevant portion of the said letter to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard:-- "2. At Sl. No. 4: Shri Asheshwar Prasad Singh, Sardar, Gang No. 06:-- It is found from records that his Date of Birth is 25.12.1953, Date of Joining is on 01.05.1984 & Date of Retirement is on 31.10.2014. This office in compliance with the instructions of FCI, RO, Guwahati, checked the available records and found that his Date of Birth is on 20.10.1954, Date of Joining is on 01.05.1984 and accordingly his Date of Retirement stands on 31.10.2014. His dependent is Smt. Mina Devi (Wife)." 10. On perusal of the above, it is seen that in the service records, the date of birth of the petitioner No. 1 stands recorded as 25th December, 1953 and if that be so, he will attain the age of superannuation on 24th December, 2013. However, in the same date, the authority writing the letter also said that his date of birth also stands recorded as 20th October, 1954 and in that event, he would attain the age of superannuation on 31st October, 2014. 11. The aforesaid position has been explained by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed against the said affidavit of the petitioner No. 1. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that the date on which the petitioner No. 1 had filed the affidavit, i.e. on 28th February, 2013, he had already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. It has also been stated that placing reliance on some interdepartmental correspondences, the petitioners cannot develop his case. As regards the documents, such as CPF balance sheet, LTC application, family identity card etc. it is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner cannot harp upon the said documents, so as to contend that their dates of birth are 20th October, 1954 and 18th February, 1965. 12. If we go by the writ petition, the documents on which the petitioners have placed reliance are the certificate of Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samiti and the photocopy of the birth certificate issued by a particular department of the Government of Bihar (both photocopies and not very legible). 12. If we go by the writ petition, the documents on which the petitioners have placed reliance are the certificate of Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samiti and the photocopy of the birth certificate issued by a particular department of the Government of Bihar (both photocopies and not very legible). As noted above, the birth certificate issued by the Government of Bihar is on the basis of the registration on 21st April, 2008 and the certificate was issued on the date of registration itself, i.e. on 21st April, 2008. Thus, although the petitioner No. 2 claims that he was born on 18th February, 1965 but his name was registered with the registering authority only on 21st April, 2008. 13. When the learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to produce the originals of the 2(two) certificates, i.e. the Annexures-1 and 2, on which the petitioners have placed reliance, she submits that the originals are not readily available with her. Be that as it may, if the petitioners have entered their services about 30(thirty) years back as workman and thereafter, their services had been regularised in 1994, the documents pertaining to the same will hold the field. It is in this context, the learned senior counsel for the FCI has referred to the 2(two) documents annexed to the counter affidavit, which are the superannuation register and GSLI's contribution papers. In both the documents, the respective dates of birth of the petitioners have been recorded as 25th February, 1953 and 18th February, 1956. 14. The documents on which the petitioners have placed reliance by enclosing the same alongwith their reply affidavit are some internal correspondences showing the desired dates of birth of the petitioners. On the other hand, some documents are only self declaration of the petitioners showing their claimed dates of birth. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have referred to some other litigation, which some other workmen like that of the petitioners had initiated in the Civil Court with the same prayer, i.e. correction of the date of birth. The 2(two) Civil Suits mentioned by the respondents in the counter affidavit are Title Suit No. 119/1995 filed by a similarly situated workman, namely, Shri Hira Mahato. Although the same was decreed in favour of the workman but in the appeal being Title Appeal No. 7/2000, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. The 2(two) Civil Suits mentioned by the respondents in the counter affidavit are Title Suit No. 119/1995 filed by a similarly situated workman, namely, Shri Hira Mahato. Although the same was decreed in favour of the workman but in the appeal being Title Appeal No. 7/2000, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 1, Silcah, dismissed the suit Similarly, another suit was filed by one Shri Vishal Singh and the same was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 174/1995 claiming the same relief but the same was also dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 2, Silchar. According to the respondents, the petitioners being aware of the said position have invoked the writ jurisdiction taking a chance for favourable consideration. 15. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation has also submitted that since the facts involved in this proceeding are all disputed, the writ petition is not maintainable. 16. Law is well settled that once a date of birth is entered in the relevant documents, the same should not be allowed to be altered at the age end of one's service career. That apart, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot make a roving enquiry in respect of disputed questions of fact. If the petitioners are still aggrieved by the decision of the respondents Corporation, it will be open for them to approach the Civil Court for resolution of the dispute. In addition, the petitioners may also approach the respondents Corporation by filing appropriate appeal/representation highlighting their grievances. In the event of such an approach being made, the same shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law and in reference to the relevant facts. The writ petition stands disposed of, without, however, any order as to costs.