Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 27 (JHR)

Kishori Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-05

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
ORDER : 1. Seeking quashing of memo dated 26.04.2007 whereby the petitioner was directed to submit formal application for pension along with other documents, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner, who claims that his correct date of birth is 05.06.1958, was appointed as Sepoy Cleaner on 03.10.1980. In the service records initially his date of birth was recorded as 05.06.1958, however, subsequently it was corrected to 01.09.1947. On that basis he was intimated his date of superannuation on 31.08.2007. The petitioner has pleaded that on account of enmity with senior officials who had been threatening him to ensure his superannuation from service on an early date, date of birth in his service record was changed from 05.06.1958 to 01.09.1947. In this regard the petitioner issued a legal notice on 07.03.2007 to the respondent-Commandant, Home Guards. However, the petitioner has not disclosed any specific reason for the alleged animosity with his senior nor he has made that senior a party respondent in the present proceeding. Admittedly, even before he issued the legal notice, letter dated 23.04.2006 was issued to him, directing him to submit pension papers. Obviously, the legal notice dated 07.03.2007 was an afterthought. It appears that upon certain complaints received by the respondents, reports were obtained from Central Training Institute, Bihta and District Commandants of Ranchi, Chapra, Hazaribagh, Saharsa, Gaya and Rohtas and on the basis of the reports thus received, a decision was taken by the Inquiry Committee to validate date of birth of the candidates as recorded in the Training Register. After the aforesaid decision, objections were filed by different candidates which were rejected by the respondents. The petitioner, thus, cannot claim ignorance to the aforesaid decision taken by the respondent. In the service record the date of birth of the petitioner was accordingly corrected to 01.09.1947, which is the date recorded in the Training Register. The said correction has been done on 24.02.1997. The petitioner, however, only after letter dated 26.04.2007 was issued to him, approached this Court and raised a controversy in respect of his date of birth. 4. In the present proceeding, except the School Transfer Certificate which discloses date of birth of the petitioner as 05.06.1958, the petitioner has failed to produce any clinching evidence in respect of his date of birth. 4. In the present proceeding, except the School Transfer Certificate which discloses date of birth of the petitioner as 05.06.1958, the petitioner has failed to produce any clinching evidence in respect of his date of birth. It has also not been asserted by the petitioner that a copy of the School Transfer Certificate annexed vide Annexure-1, was submitted by him to the authorities at the time of his appointment. In State of U.P. and Others vs. Smt. Gulaichi, (2003) 6 SCC 483 , a case in which the employee applied for correction of date of birth as recorded in service book at the verge of retirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "9......Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of the date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service-book." 5. Considering the fact that the respondents had taken a conscious decision way back in the year 1997, on the basis of which age of an appointee as recorded in the Training Register was accepted as his correct date of birth/age, challenge at this stage to the correction in the date of birth of the petitioner in the service records cannot be accepted. 6. In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.