Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 205 (JK)

Pritam Singh v. State of J&K

2017-04-19

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Janak Raj Kotwal, J. 1. This is a writ petition. Short but important question raised is; whether the age of superannuation of the petitioner should be determined on the basis of his date of birth recorded as 05.04.1964 in the Matriculation Certificate or on the basis of the date of birth recorded as 05.04.1954 in his Service Book/Character Roll? Petitioner and four others were appointed as constables in District Police, Jammu vide Order No. 135 of 1982, dated 29.01.1982 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, herein respondent No. 4. In the appointment order, copy whereof has been produced by the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 05.04.1964. Respondent No. 4 vide Order No. 1002 of 2014, dated 06.05.2014, however, has ordered petitioner's retirement from service with immediate effect on the basis of his date of birth recorded as 05.04.1954 in his Character Roll. 2. Feeling aggrieved by his retirement the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the Order No. 1002 of 2014, dated 06.05.2014 passed by respondent No. 4 and a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as in service till he attains age of superannuation in April, 2022, with all monetary and service benefits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that at the time of his recruitment he had submitted his provisional Matriculation Certificate and Matriculation Diploma issued by the J & K Board of School Education (J & K BOSE), under Roll No. 17706, Sr. No. 2419 for the Session May, 1981 and the Marks sheet issued for the said examination. In the year 2011, it came to his knowledge that in his Character Roll, his date of birth has been incorrectly recorded as 05.04.1954 as against 05.04.1964, which is his actual date of birth as reflected in his Matriculation Diploma and the Marks sheet. He, therefore, applied to the respondents for correction of his date of birth. 5. In the year 2011, it came to his knowledge that in his Character Roll, his date of birth has been incorrectly recorded as 05.04.1954 as against 05.04.1964, which is his actual date of birth as reflected in his Matriculation Diploma and the Marks sheet. He, therefore, applied to the respondents for correction of his date of birth. 5. Common ground of both the sides is that attested copy of the Matriculation Certificate issued from the J & K Board of School Education under Roll No. 17706, Session May, 1981 produced by the petitioner was sent by the respondent-4 vide his office No. OASI/DOB/11/47742/DPO, dated 12.11.2011 to the Joint Secretary, of the said Board and information was sought as to whether the marks sheet issued by the Board was genuine and date of birth recorded in it was 05.04.1964 (Fifth April Nineteen Hundred Sixty Four). The Board of School Education vide its communication dated 16.12.2011 gave particulars of the candidate, who had appeared in the aforementioned examination and verified that 'the enclosed certificate bearing S.No. 2419 is genuine'. This communication in its substance is reproduced for ready reference: "The Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education Rehari Colony, Jammu, EPBX-2583750, 2583494 BOSE VERIFICATION SECTION Sl. No........... Code No.................. No. (sic) JD 201 Dated:-16.12.2011 Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jammu. Subject:- VERIFICATION OF CERTIFICATE Ref. Your Letter No. OASI/DOB/11/47742/DPOJ, Dated:-12.11.2011 Sir, Please refer to your letter under reference for verification of qualification/Marks certificate. As per the records available with the Board, the particulars of the candidate, who has appeared for the public examination conducted by this Board (from Jammu Division) are reproduced below:- If there is any mutilation or correction in this verification letter, it should be treated as INVALID. 1. Name Pritam Singh 2. Father’s Name Sh . Chur Singh 3. Mother’s Name - 4. Examination S.S.E . (10th) 5. Roll No. 17706 6. Session 1981(Annual) 7. Marks obtained 308/850 8. Result/Grade Pass/Third Division 9. a) Date of Birth in Figures 05.04.1964 b) Date of Birth in Words Fifth of April and Nineteen Hundred Sixty Four. 6. As the correction of his date of birth was not effected even after the authentication of his Matriculation Certificate by the Board of School Education, the petitioner filed SWP No. 261/2012 in this Court. Result/Grade Pass/Third Division 9. a) Date of Birth in Figures 05.04.1964 b) Date of Birth in Words Fifth of April and Nineteen Hundred Sixty Four. 6. As the correction of his date of birth was not effected even after the authentication of his Matriculation Certificate by the Board of School Education, the petitioner filed SWP No. 261/2012 in this Court. During the pendency of that writ petition, the Director General of Police, herein respondent No. 3, vide the Police Headquarters' No. Estt/DOB-01/2012/18004-07, dated 31.03.2012 recommended the case to the Home Department (Administrative Department), herein respondent-1, "for issuance of necessary orders on the claim of the petitioner for adoption of his date of birth as 05.04.1964, which is subscribed by Matriculation Certificate as also the copy of initial appointment order issued by the S.S.P. Jammu". This recommendation was made pursuant to the interim direction issued by this Court in SWP No. 261/2012 on 09.02.2012, whereby the respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders as warranted under rules on petitioner's application seeking correction of his date of birth on the basis of entry recorded in the Matriculation Certificate. 7. In view of the authentication of the petitioner's date of birth and the recommendation made by the Director General of Police to the Administrative Department, this Court in the order passed in SWP No. 261/2012 on 20.04.2012 took the view that "it would be in fitness of the circumstances to permit the petitioner who on the basis of the already recorded date of birth was to retire on April 30, 2012, to continue in service until the State Government take appropriate decision on the Director General's recommendation". Petitioner thus continued in service. 8. Order No. 1002 of 2014, dated 06.05.2014 passed by the respondent No. 4, which is impugned in this writ petition, would show that the recommendation made by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 1 was returned to the Police Headquarters along with the advise of the Finance Department, herein respondent No. 2, that the Department should 'settle the case of the petitioner in terms of clause (C) of Article 35-AA of J & K CSR'. The advise of the Finance Department was passed on to the respondent No. 4 vide PHQ Jammu No. Estt./DOB-01/2012/19339-40 read with Zonal Police Headquarter Jammu's No. Pers/P/2014/10246, dated 2.4.2014. The advise of the Finance Department was passed on to the respondent No. 4 vide PHQ Jammu No. Estt./DOB-01/2012/19339-40 read with Zonal Police Headquarter Jammu's No. Pers/P/2014/10246, dated 2.4.2014. Respondent No. 4 on his part passed the impugned order ordering the immediate retirement of the petitioner. As per this order, what was done by respondent No. 4 is comprised in the last paragraph of the order. For easy reference last two paragraphs of the impugned order are reproduced; "Whereas, on 29.3.2014 PHQ J & K, Jammu vide No. Estt./DOB-01/2012/19339-40 received through ZPHQ Jammus' No. Pers/P/2014/10246, dated 2.4.2014 has communicated that the matter was referred to Home Department for adoption of date of birth of above named ASI as 05.04. 1964 which has been returned by the Home Department with the following observation of the Finance Department. "The Department is advised to settle the case of the petitioner in terms of clause 9(C) of Article 35-AA of J & K CSRs". Whereas, in compliance to the directions herein received above from Finance as well as Administrative Department (Home Department) through PHQ/ZPHQ as well as in terms clause (C) of Article 35-AA of J & K CSRs, ASI Pritam Singh No. EXJ-825769 is hereby treated as retired from the services with immediate effect". 9. Petitioner assails the impugned order on the grounds that his date of birth as reflected in his Matriculation Certificate is 05.04.1964 and was similarly reflected in his appointment order. The date of birth recorded as 05.04.1954 is without any basis and foundation and was a bona fide clerical mistake committed by the respondents while recording the date of birth in the Character Roll and for this negligence and mistake on the part of the respondents petitioner was made to suffer irreparable loss. It is contended that as the Character Roll remains in the possession of the Department, he had no knowledge about the wrong entry of his date of birth in his Character Roll. He got the knowledge about this wrong entry in the year 2011 and immediately applied for its correction. The claim of the petitioner was accepted and adopted by respondents-3 and 4 and accordingly recommendation was made to the Administrative Department for adopting his correct date of birth. The respondents-1 and 2, however, illegally declined to effect the correction in the Character Roll. 10. Respondents have resisted the claim of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner was accepted and adopted by respondents-3 and 4 and accordingly recommendation was made to the Administrative Department for adopting his correct date of birth. The respondents-1 and 2, however, illegally declined to effect the correction in the Character Roll. 10. Respondents have resisted the claim of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has not brought true facts to the notice of the Court and has raised disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated upon in a writ petition. The application for correction of the date of birth was filed beyond time and this Court cannot come to rescue of a person who sleeps over his rights. On merits it has been contended that the case of the petitioner has been decided in terms of clause (C) of Article 35-AA of J & K CSR and the order does not suffer from any illegality. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Soodan, argued that there had been no delay on the part of the petitioner either in agitating his claim before respondent No. 4 or in approaching this Court. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner had no access to his Character Roll till the year 2011 when he was informed about his untimely impending retirement in April, 2012. At that stage the petitioner got knowledge about the wrong entry of date of birth in his Character Roll and he immediately filed representation before respondent No. 4. He approached this Court as no decision was taken by the Department and his date of retirement based upon incorrect entry was approaching near. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 26.04.2012, Kewal Lal v. State & Ors., SWP No. 601/2012. 12. Per contra Mr. W.S. Nargal, learned Sr. AAG argued that petitioner agitated his claim after 29 years of his joining the Police service which could not have been granted and for the same reason this petition also suffers from delay and latches. Learned Sr. AAG pointed out that the veracity of petitioner's claim is falsified by the strength of his claim itself because in case his date of birth is taken as 05.04.1964, he was under age for entering Government service being less than 18 years as on 29.01.1982 when he came to be appointed. 13. Learned Sr. AAG pointed out that the veracity of petitioner's claim is falsified by the strength of his claim itself because in case his date of birth is taken as 05.04.1964, he was under age for entering Government service being less than 18 years as on 29.01.1982 when he came to be appointed. 13. It is noticed that the genuineness of the Matriculation Certificate (Diploma) of the petitioner issued by the J & K State Board of School Education showing that the petitioner passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1981-Annual under Roll No. 17706 and his date of birth as 05.04.1964 has not been disputed by the respondents. It is not denied that the same certificate was produced by the petitioner at the time of his selection/appointment as constable in the Police Department, which is rather evident also from the appointment Order No. 135 of 1982, dated 29.01.1982 issued by the then Sr. Superintendent of Police Jammu, whereby the petitioner was appointed, in which the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 05.04.1964. It is not denied also that the same certificate was produced by the petitioner as confirmatory evidence for the purpose of the preparation of his Character Roll. A copy of the same certificate is lying on the record produced on behalf of the respondents. 14. Authentication about the Matriculation Certificate produced by the petitioner was obtained by the respondent No. 4 from the Board of School Education vide his letter dated 16.12.2011 (supra). On the basis of the said authentication respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 31.03.2012 (supra) had recommended the petitioner's case to the Administrative Department for necessary orders on his claim for adoption of his date of birth as 05.04.1964. The operative part of this communication is reproduced for easy reference; "3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the case is referred to the Home Department for issuance of necessary orders on the claim of the petitioner for adoption of his date of birth as 05.04.1964 which is subscribed by the matriculation certificate as also the copy of the initial appointment order issued by the SSP Jammu. Original character roll alongwith connected papers are enclosed herewith for perusal and further necessary action". 15. Original character roll alongwith connected papers are enclosed herewith for perusal and further necessary action". 15. It is important to note that in the letter dated 31.3.2012 (supra) the respondent No. 3 had clearly pointed out that the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in the appointment order is 'corroborated by the Matriculation Certificate issued in his favour by the Board of School Education which has also been got subsequently authenticated from concerned Headquarter'. It was also stated clearly in this letter that there is 'no back up evidence to support credentials' of the date of birth of the petitioner recorded as 05.04.1954, while preparing his Character Roll in the District Police Office. 16. On the basis of the Matriculation Certificate of the petitioner coupled with its authentication by the Board of School Education, it clearly emerges and there would be no difficulty in holding that the actual date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in his Matriculation Certificate is 05.04.1964 and was correctly so reflected in his appointment order dated 29.01.1982 issued by the then Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jammu. The date of birth of the petitioner in his Character Roll, however, was wrongly recorded as 05.04.1954, admittedly without any basis as pointed out by respondent No. 3 in the letter to the Administrative Department dated 31.03.2012 (supra). It can, therefore, be safely concluded that recording the date of birth of the petitioner in his Character Roll as 05.04.1954 was a sheer clerical error committed in the office of respondent No. 4 by the person(s) involved in preparing the same. 17. A conjoint reading of Article 35-AA of the J & K CSRs and Rule 6.4 of the Financial Code shows that the Service Book of a Government servant is an important document. Preparation of the Service Book is an important function of the Head of Office/Drawing and Disbursing officer, which is required to be performed diligently and cautiously. Clause (a) of Article 35-AA provides that the date on which a Government Servant attains the age of superannuation shall be determined with reference to the date of birth declared by him at the time of his appointment, supported by confirmatory documentary evidence to be produced by him, and accepted by the appointing authority. Clause (a) of Article 35-AA provides that the date on which a Government Servant attains the age of superannuation shall be determined with reference to the date of birth declared by him at the time of his appointment, supported by confirmatory documentary evidence to be produced by him, and accepted by the appointing authority. The documentary evidence to be produced by a Government servant in support of the declaration about his age is also specified in clause (a) which inter alia in case of a Government Servant, where prescribed qualification for entering the Government service is Matriculation or above, is the Matriculation Certificate or its equivalent certificate issued by the J & K Board of School Education or any recognized Board or University wherefrom such Government servant has passed such examination. Clause (b) of Article 35-AA casts a duty on the concerned Head of Office/Drawing and Disbursing Officer to record the date of birth of a Government Servant on production of the confirmatory documentary evidence by him in the Service Book/or any other record that may be kept in respect of such Government Servant (Character Roll in the case of police personnel) with reference to relevant confirmatory document. A further duty is cast upon the Head of Office/Drawing and Disbursing Officer to obtain signature or thumb impression (in case of illiterate person) of the concerned Government Servant in token of its acceptance on the first page of the Service Book/record of service. Clause (c) of Article 35-AA, which is more relevant in this case, deals with alteration of the date of birth recorded in the Service Book/record of service (Character Roll in this case). 18. It is not stated in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that signature of the petitioner was taken on the first page of the Character Roll of the petitioner in token of the correctness of the entries made therein, in particular the date of birth of the petitioner. It is also not stated nor it can be visualized as to how the petitioner could have had obtained information or was in know of the wrong entry about his date of birth in the Character Roll up to the year 2011, when he might have been officially informed about his impending retirement in April, 2012 on attaining age of 58 years on the basis of the recorded date of birth. In such a scenario objection raised on behalf the respondents that there had been any delay on the part of the petitioner in agitating his grievance before the competent authority or approaching this Court has no substance and is liable to be rejected on this score alone. Even otherwise, delay, if any, is not of any consequence, as would be indicated hereinafter. Likewise, the argument of learned Sr. AAG that in case date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 05.04.1964, he was under age for entering Government service, being less than 18 years, is totally out of context because eligibility of the petitioners as at the time of his selection some thirty five years ago is not the question raised in this petition. Not only that, having shown the date of birth of the petitioner as 05.04.1964 in the appointment order, it was for respondents to explain the circumstances in which he was recruited at that age. 19. The only question, thus, surviving for consideration is whether: the respondent No. 4 (the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu) was right in ordering retirement of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 06.05.2014 after receiving the advise of the Administrative/Finance Department, which was conveyed to him vide Zonal Police Headquarter communication dated 02.04.2014 (supra), or more was expected of him? 20. As stated above, the Administrative Department had conveyed to the Police Headquarters, the Finance Department's advice that the case of the petitioner should be settled in terms of clause (c) of Article 35-AA of J & K CSR. The Police Headquarters in turn had passed on this advice to the respondent No. 4. 21. Clause (c) of Article 35-AA of the J & K CSR is reproduced to the extent it is relevant: "(c) Alteration of Date of Birth. The date of birth so declared by the Government servant and accepted and once recorded by the appropriate authority (as specified in clause (b) above) in the service book or any other record of service of the Government servant, as the case may be, shall not be subject to any alteration, except in the case of a clerical error without the orders of the Government. No alteration of date of birth of a Government servant shall be made by the Government (Administrative Department) unless a request in this regard is made by the concerned Government servant within a period of five years of his/her entry into Government service and it is clearly established that genuine/bonafide mistake has occurred. Provided that in case of Government servant in service on the date of issue of this Notification, a request for alteration of his/her date of birth may be considered by the Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing if any application to this effect is made within a period of six months from the date of issue of this Notification. Provided further...................... Notwithstanding......................." (emphasis supplied) 22. Clause (c) of Article 35-AA of J & K CSR on a plain look contemplates two situations in which alteration in the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book/record of service (Character Roll) of a Government servant is permissible. One, a genuine/bona fide mistake in declaring his date of birth by the Government Servant and its acceptance by the officer preparing the Service Book/record of service, as the case may be and two, a clerical error in recording the date of birth in the Service Book/record of service. The date of birth as declared by a Government servant, once recorded in his Service Book/record of service, cannot be altered, except by the order of the Government (Administrative Department). Such alteration shall be ordered by the Government only if a request in this regard is made by the concerned Government servant within a period of five years of his/her entry into Government service and it is clearly established that the mistake was genuine/bona fide. Where, however, a clerical error has occurred in recording the date of birth in the Service Book/record of service (Character Roll), no Government sanction or order for correction of such clerical error is required and the correction can be effected by the concerned Head of the Office/Drawing and Disbursing Officer. 23. Clause (c) of Article 35-AA of the J & K CSRs, thus, carves out distinction between alternation of the date of birth recorded in the Service Book/record of service and the correction of a clerical error in recording such date of birth. 23. Clause (c) of Article 35-AA of the J & K CSRs, thus, carves out distinction between alternation of the date of birth recorded in the Service Book/record of service and the correction of a clerical error in recording such date of birth. In the former case the Government servant wants alteration of the date of birth which he himself had declared at the time of preparation of his Service Book and was supported by the confirmatory documentary evidence (date of birth certificate) produced by him. In such a case the Government servant must apply for alternation of his date of birth within five years of his/her entry into Government service and alteration can be made only by order/sanction of the Government (Administrative Department). In the latter case, however, a mistake was committed by the Head of office/Drawing and Disbursing Officer in recording the date of birth in the Service Book/record of service and such a mistake is called clerical error. No time limit is prescribed for correction of a clerical error. Nonetheless, the concerned Government servant must apply for correction as soon as the error comes to or is brought to his notice. Correction of clerical error does not require Government order/sanction and can be effected by the Head of Office/Drawing and Disbursing Officer, which, however, should be done after inquiry and recording his satisfaction that it was a case of clerical error only. 24. In the case in hand, as discussed and stated above, it was a clear case of clerical error in recording the date of birth in the Character Roll of the petitioner. The date of birth of the petitioner in his Matriculation Certificate is clearly mentioned as 05.04.1964 and was similarly reflected in his appointment order. The date of birth as recorded in the Character Roll, however, is 05.04.1954. Record produced on behalf of the respondents on its scrutiny reflects a general consensus within the department too that the real date of birth of the petitioner as per the Matriculation Certificate produced by him is 05.04.1964 but there was a clerical error in recording the same in his Character Roll. It would be in place here to extract second para of the official note dated 09.11.2011, that had been placed before the then SSP, Jammu. It would be in place here to extract second para of the official note dated 09.11.2011, that had been placed before the then SSP, Jammu. "In view of above, it seems wrong DOB has been reflected in Service Book by showing DOB as 05.04.1954 and appointment order issued shows DOB as 05.04.1954 and certificate of Board of School Education also shows DOB as 05.04.1954. It is as such suggestive that original certificate issued by BOSE be obtained by said ASI and be got verified from BOSE and in case it came to be genuine, the matter be referred to PHQ for correction and otherwise case may be rejected and ASI be sent to retirement as per due date." 25. The Matriculation Certificate of the petitioner was duly authenticated by the Board of School Education. Based upon that authentication the Police Headquarters/the respondent No. 3 had recommended petitioner's case to the Administrative Department for adoption of his claim that his date of birth is 05.04.1964 stating inter alia clearly that entry in regard to the date of birth in the-Character Roll of the petitioner was without any back up evidence. The Finance Department evidently had categorized this as a case of clerical error and had advised the Administrative Department to deal with the case in terms of clause (c) of Article 35-AA of J & K CSR. The advise of the Finance Department was accepted by the Administrative Department and the matter was accordingly sent back to the Police Department. Had the Finance Department or the Administrative Department net taken it as a case of clerical error, appropriate order would have been passed at the Government level and the matter would not have been sent back to the Police Department along with the advice of the Finance Department because only a clerical error could have been rectified at the Departmental level. Since it was a case of clerical error, the Administrative Department had rightly conveyed the advise of the Finance Department to the Police Headquarters and the Police Headquarters had rightly conveyed the advice to respondent No. 3 as the clerical error was to be corrected at the Departmental level by the authority that had prepared the Character Roll. 26. The respondent No. 3, exactly the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, however, left much to be desired. 26. The respondent No. 3, exactly the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, however, left much to be desired. What was expected of respondent No. 3 was to accord consideration to the case in terms of clause (c) of Article 35-AA of J & K CSR and order rectification of the clerical order by changing the entry in regard to the age of the petitioner from 05.04.1954 to 05.04.1964 in his Character Roll as it was satisfactorily established on the basis of the authentication by the Board of School Education that the Matriculation Certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of his selection and appointment showing his date of birth as 05.04.1964 was genuine and as there was no back up evidence in support of the entry as recorded in the Character Roll. The impugned order, relevant portion whereof has been culled out hereinabove, reflects complete non application of mind and apathy on the part of the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu towards the interest of the petitioner and his fundamental right of continuing in the Government service till he attains the age of superannuation applicable as at the relevant time. The impugned order, whereby petitioner has been virtually robbed of his right to continue in Government service for another ten years, therefore, is illegal and cannot sustain. 27. Matter, however, cannot be closed here only as the sordid manner in which the case has been dealt with at different levels in the official hierarchy and ultimately ended up in a rude shock and tragedy to the petitioner has been noticed and needs to be pointed out. The letter dated 31.03.2012 (supra) of respondent No.3, whereby the Police Headquarters had recommended petitioner's case to the Administrative Department for adoption of his date of birth as 05.04.1964 gives a clear reflection of the satisfaction at the Departmental level that there was a clerical error in recording the date of birth in the Character Roll. Rectification of this error should have been ordered at that stage at the Departmental level only but, it appears, smooth and safer path of referring the matter to the Government (Administrative Department) was chosen. It took the Administrative Department two years to return the case to the Police Headquarters with the advise of the Finance Department. Rectification of this error should have been ordered at that stage at the Departmental level only but, it appears, smooth and safer path of referring the matter to the Government (Administrative Department) was chosen. It took the Administrative Department two years to return the case to the Police Headquarters with the advise of the Finance Department. The Police Headquarters, while sending the case to respondent No. 4 vide letter No. Estt./DOB-01/2012/19339-41, dated 02.03.2014, asked respondent No. 4 to take further necessary action in light of the observation of the Home Department. Better it would have been had the Police Headquarters advised/ordered the respondent No. 4 to rectify the error by correcting the entry in the Character Roll. The respondent No. 4 on his part vide his Order No. 908 of 2014, dated 19.04.2014, having regard to the provisions of clause (c) of Article 35-AA of the J & K CSR and authentication of the Matriculation Certificate of the petitioner by the Board of School Education, indeed corrected the date of birth of the petitioner in the Character Roll as 05.04.1964 and sent a copy of that inter alia to respondent No. 3. The order passed by respondent No. 3 as found on the record produced on behalf of the respondents is reproduced: "DISTRICT POLICE HEADQUARTERS JAMMU Order No. 908 of 2014, Dated: 19-04-2014 ASI Pritam Singh No. 458/J, EXJ82569 submitted that his date of birth has been written as 05-04-1954 instead of 05-04-1964 in his Character Roll. He had requested for correction of the same. Accordingly, the case was referred to PHQ and therefrom to Home Department for due consideration. PHQ J & K Jammu, vide letter under Endstt. No. Estt./DOB-01/2012/19339-41, dated 29-03-2014 has directed that in pursuance to Finance Department's U.O. No. A/1(2012)-175, dated 29-11-2013. Home Department vide their letter No. Home/PB-III/DOB/79/2012/1029, dated 11-02-2014, has directed to settle the case of the petitioner in terms of Clause (C) of Article 35-AA of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations. In terms of Clause (C) of Article 35-AA of the J & K CSR the date of birth certificate/diploma of the above named ASI has been verified from the J & K Board of School Education and the date of birth of the individual is adopted as 05-04-1964 (fifth of April, N/H and sixty four) instead of 05-04-1954. In terms of Clause (C) of Article 35-AA of the J & K CSR the date of birth certificate/diploma of the above named ASI has been verified from the J & K Board of School Education and the date of birth of the individual is adopted as 05-04-1964 (fifth of April, N/H and sixty four) instead of 05-04-1954. Entry of the correct date of birth as 05-04-1964 is made in his Character Roll and attested by the undersigned. Sd/- Sr. Superintendent of Police Jammu No. 14849-53/DPO Dated: 19-04-2014" 28. The matter should have ended there, but the right decision of correcting the date of birth of the petitioner taken by respondent No. 4 vide his order dated 19.04.2014 was short lived as by a subsequent Order No. 1001 of 2014, dated 06.05.2014, respondent No. 4 cancelled the order dated 19.04.2014 without assigning any reason and simultaneously on the same day, passed the impugned order ordering retirement of the petitioner with immediate effect. The cancellation order dated 06.05.2014 as it has been found on the record is reproduced: "DISTRICT POLICE HEADQUARTERS JAMMU Order No. 1001 of 2014, Dated: 06-05-2014 In terms of clause (C) of Article 35-AA of J & K CSRs, the Order No. 908 of 2014, dated 19-04-2014 issued under Endstt. No. 14849-53/DPOJ, dated 19-04-2014 for adoption of date of birth in respect of ASI Pritam Singh No. 458/J, EXJ25769 is hereby treated as cancelled. Sd/- Sr. Superintendent of Police Jammu No. OSI/145/16636-40 Dated:-06-06-2014" 29. It is not understandable and has been noticed with surprise as to why the Order No. 908 of 2014, dated 19.04.2014 was cancelled on 06.05.2014. This aspect of the matter rather has been concealed from the Court in the objections filed on behalf of the respondents, rather than explained. Be that as it may, it can be safely said that injustice has been done to the petitioner, firstly, by not taking the appropriate decision in time at the Police Headquarters' level and secondly, and mainly, by the questionable act of the then Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jammu/respondent No. 4, whereby he, cancelled his own order dated 19.04.2014 (supra). The right decision taken vide order dated 19.04.2014 by respondent No. 4 was cancelled without assigning any reason. The petitioner had been the victim of the insensitivity and inapt approach at all levels in the official hierarchy in the Police Department. Superintendent of Police, Jammu/respondent No. 4, whereby he, cancelled his own order dated 19.04.2014 (supra). The right decision taken vide order dated 19.04.2014 by respondent No. 4 was cancelled without assigning any reason. The petitioner had been the victim of the insensitivity and inapt approach at all levels in the official hierarchy in the Police Department. The manner in which the immediate retirement of the petitioner was directed by respondent No. 4 by passing impugned order dated 06.05.2014 reflects the utter disregard to the right and interest of an employee at the lower level resulting into uncalled for litigation and humiliation and monetary loss to him. This aspect of the matter needs to be addressed the least by compensating the petitioner in the matter of expenses incurred by him in avoidable and uncalled for litigation he was faced to go for. 30. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is allowed and by issue of a writ of certiorari impugned Order No. 1002 of 2014, dated 06.05.2014 passed by respondent No. 4 is quashed and by issue of writ of mandamus the petitioner stands reinstated in the service of Police Department with effect from 06.05.2014 with all monetary and other service benefits including the benefit of seniority, promotion, if any. Respondent(s) shall immediately issue formal order in this regard and shall effect the correction of the date of birth of the petitioner in the Character Roll changing it from 05.04.1954 to 05.04.1964. 31. Having regard to the circumstances in which decision in the matter has been delayed and the then Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jammu cancelled his own Order No. 908 of 2014, dated 19.04.2014 by a subsequent Order No. 1001 of 2014 passed on 06.05.2014, I deem it proper to impose respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees) to be paid to the petitioner. It shall, however, be open for the respondents to inquire into the circumstances leading to cancellation of the Order No. 908 of 2014, dated 19.04.2014 and recover the amount of costs from the officer, who passed the cancellation Order No. 1001 (supra) and the impugned Order No. 1002 (supra) so that State exchequer is not unnecessarily burdened. 32. Registry shall return the record to the learned Sr. AAG. Disposed of.