Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 187 (TRI)

Monoranjan Debbarma v. State of Tripura

2017-04-06

S.TALAPATRA

body2017
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. PK Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that despite his representation, the respondents did not correct his date of birth as entered into the Service Book as 05.09.1951. According to the petitioner, the petitioner’s date of birth as per the official records including the admit card issued by the Tripura Board of Secondary Education is 05.09.1959 not 05.09.1951. On the basis of the representation and the documents filed by the petitioner for alteration of the date of birth, his service record is still awaited to be verified by the competent authority. The respondents conducted an inquiry and even had asked the Tripura Board of Secondary Education to verify their records for purpose of ascertaining the genuinity of the admit card as issued in favour of the petitioner for appearing in the Madhyamik examination. The Tripura Board of the Secondary Education by the communication dated 20.06.2013 under the signature of its Secretary has informed the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura that the admit card where the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 05.09.1951 is found to be genuine. However that communication dated 20.06.2003 has not been made part of the record in this proceedings, but that record, as per the order of this court has been produced by Mr. PK Pal, learned counsel. From the records as maintained by the Director of School Education, this court has come across the communication dated 20.06.2013. The result of the said verification has been admitted by the respondents in their reply by stating as under: “The Secretary, T.B.S.E by a letter No. F.9(C)/TBSE/11 dated 20.06.2013 has communicated “verification report of admit card” in respect of the petitioner whereby the T.B.S.E intimated the respondent No.2 the genuineness of the “date of birth” reflected as “05-09-1959” under Roll No. 15570”. 3. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the whose thing is shrouded by strong suspicion inasmuch as after 20 years of filling up of the attestation form, the petitioner has filed his subsequent representation on 27.06.2016 [Annexure I to the writ petition] for correction of the date of birth. Mr. 3. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the whose thing is shrouded by strong suspicion inasmuch as after 20 years of filling up of the attestation form, the petitioner has filed his subsequent representation on 27.06.2016 [Annexure I to the writ petition] for correction of the date of birth. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has further stated that by the memorandum under No. F.23(6)-GA(P&T)/2005 dated 27.03.2004 [Annexure A to the counter affidavit], the government has decided the procedural norms, the guidelines for change of the date of birth and disposal of any representation in that regard. The said memorandum dated 27.03.2007 has laid down the procedure as under: “(i) A Government servant shall have to submit application for correction of date of birth within 5(five) years from the date of his first entry into Government service. No application submitted by a government servant for correction of his date of birth on expiry of 5(five) years from the date of his first entry into the Government service shall be entertained. (ii) Date of birth may be corrected only when the proof is of unimpeachable character and with the prior approval of the General Administration (Personnel & Training) Department”. 4. The petitioner no doubt has filed the application after about 30(thirty) years after the petitioner was appointed by the order dated 25.09.1982. In terms of the said memorandum dated 27.03.2007, the petitioner is barred from raising any objection regarding his date of birth but from the communication under No. F.KLP(C)/2006/886, dated 02.01.2012, it appears that the verification of the Service Book was not done before 31.12.2011 when one Inspector of Schools, Teliamura had reported to the Director of School Education by his communication dated 02.01.2012 [Annexure C to the writ petition] that the date of birth was not verified and when he verified the date of birth for the first time on 02.01.2012 on the basis of the service record, it was found that the actual date of birth is 05.09.1959 as per the admit card issued by the Tripura Board of Secondary Education in the year 1983. The said communication dated 02.01.2012 [Annexure C to the writ petition] has been relied but the respondents could not place any other record to show that there was verification of the date of birth on the basis of the records. The said communication dated 02.01.2012 [Annexure C to the writ petition] has been relied but the respondents could not place any other record to show that there was verification of the date of birth on the basis of the records. As such an unverified entry in respect of the date of birth in the Service Book cannot institute the starting point for purpose of limitation of five years. If the limitation has to start, it has to start from 02.01.2012 and in that view of the matter, the application dated 18.11.2014 [Annexure E to the writ petition] that was filed by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth was within the period of limitation in terms of the said memorandum dated 27.03.2007. 5. On the basis of the verification report submitted by the Tripura Board of Secondary Education, as the verification was conducted at the instance of the respondent No.2 and in absence of any other unimpeachable document demonstrating the other date of birth except the date of birth that has been recorded in the service book the respondent No. 2 shall act and take appropriate remedial action on the verification report and the admit card that has been submitted by the petitioner for correction in the entry of his date of birth to 05.09.1959 shall be given its due weightage. If the petitioner had been forced out of the service on treating his date of birth on 05.09.1951, the petitioner shall be inducted in the service. For the period that the petitioner did not serve, the respondents shall treat his pay and allowances notionally. 6. Having observed thus, this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. The respondents are directed to take back the petitioner within a period of 1(one) months from the day when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. PK Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The records, as produced by Mr. Pal, learned counsel in terms of the order dated 30.03.2017, are returned.