Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 524 (UTT)

Hari Om v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

2016-08-29

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner is an unskilled worker in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (from hereinafter referred to as “BHEL”). He has filed the present writ petition with the prayers to issue a writ or a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the date of birth of his service record as 03.08.1956, which has wrongly been recorded by the respondents and the same be recorded as 12.01.1963 instead of 03.08.1956. 2. It is an admitted fact that as per the service record of the petitioner available with BHEL, his date of birth recorded is 03.08.1956. Learned counsel for the BHEL was asked to produce the original records of the petitioner, which has been placed today before this Court. From the perusal of the original records it is clear that in the main service records of the petitioner his date of birth recorded by the respondents is 03.08.1956. 3. The petitioner had completed his junior high school in the year 1990 and the certificate of his junior high school has been annexed as annexure No. 2 to the writ petition wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 12.01.1963, but the petitioner has never corrected his date of birth in the service records. According to the petitioner, there is still no change in his date of birth in the service records, as the employer did not agree with this change. Moreover, nothing has been shown by the petitioner which shows that the petitioner had made any efforts for the change of his date of birth in his service record initially. Now the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 24.08.2016 and only for this reason this matter is being heard finally. 4. Heard Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Rajni Supiyal, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 5. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that in various service records, including his junior high school certificate, provident fund records, record relating to the hospital etc. his date of birth is 12.01.1963, and therefore, he cannot be superannuated, as he has not reached the age of superannuation. 6. 5. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that in various service records, including his junior high school certificate, provident fund records, record relating to the hospital etc. his date of birth is 12.01.1963, and therefore, he cannot be superannuated, as he has not reached the age of superannuation. 6. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted because as per his service record his date of birth is 03.08.1956 and the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation on 24.08.2016. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had done his high school either prior to his employment or even thereafter where the date of birth could be recorded as 12.01.1963. All the documents shown by the petitioner before this Court which show his date of birth is 12.01.1963, have absolutely relevance in the present case, as the two necessary documents would be the service record of the petitioner where his date of birth had been recorded as 03.08.1956 and his high school certificate, which is admittedly not done by the petitioner. Since admittedly no high school certificate is available with the petitioner, therefore, the date of birth would be counted from the service record of the petitioner, where admittedly his date of birth recorded as 03.08.1956. 7. This Court finds no ground to interfere in the present matter, as there is no merit in the case of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.