Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 313 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. T. A. Gami

2020-02-18

S.R.BRAHMBHATT, V.B.MAYANI

body2020
JUDGMENT : V.B. Mayani, J. 1. The appellant - State was the original respondent in Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011 which has been decided by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 07.06.2016 allowing the writ petition of the present opponent, and therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act by the appellant-State. The opponent herein was the original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011. 2. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has prayed in para-7 as under: "(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present Appeal; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned oral order dated 07.06.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011." 3. The short facts of the present Letters Patent Appeal are as under: 3.1. The opponent herein was selected as Mamlatdar by way of direct recruitment, on 15.06.1978. Thereafter, he felt that his date of birth of 31.10.1951 as mentioned in the service book is not true, and therefore, he approached before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Vadiya praying that it is to be certified that his date of birth is 06.02.1954 instead of 31.10.1951. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadiya by its order dated 12.09.1980 had given a certificate that the birth date of the opponent herein is 06.02.1954. Thereafter, on 11.12.1980, opponent herein wrote a letter to the Collector, Amreli for change of birth date in his service book as 06.02.1954 instead of 31.10.1951. The Collector, Amreli by its reply dated 06.03.1982 informed the opponent herein that his application for change of birth date in the service book is not granted by the State Government as it is not as per the Rules. The Collector, Amreli by its reply dated 06.03.1982 informed the opponent herein that his application for change of birth date in the service book is not granted by the State Government as it is not as per the Rules. Afterwards, the opponent herein instituted the Civil Suit No. 127 of 1996 against the decision of the State Government in the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar and by judgment and order dated 24.03.2003, the Court allowed the Civil Suit and declared that the birth date of the opponent herein is 06.02.1954 and also directed the officer of the State Government to consider the said date of birth i.e. 06.02.1954 for the purpose of superannuation and pensionary benefits and also directed to correct the record of service book of the opponent herein. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the State Government had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2005 before the Principal District Judge, Jamnagar and by judgment and order dated 07.08.2007, the appeal of the State was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 127 of 1996 dated 24.03.2003 was set aside. 3.2. The opponent herein had preferred Special Civil Application No. 27816 of 2007 before this Court, and this Court by an order dated 29.10.2007, directed the opponent herein to make a detailed representation within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order and the State Government shall consider the representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate reasoned order within three months from the receipt of the representation. The opponent herein had made a representation dated 18.01.2008 to the State Government. The State Government after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, passed a detailed order dated 08.05.2008 rejecting the representation of the opponent herein. 3.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above order of the State Government dated 08.05.2008, the opponent herein had preferred Special Civil Application No. 11588 of 2008 before this Court. This Court by its order dated 01.02.2011 quashed and set aside the order of the State Government dated 08.05.2008 and the State Government was directed to reconsider the case of the opponent herein and take a decision within a period of three months. This Court by its order dated 01.02.2011 quashed and set aside the order of the State Government dated 08.05.2008 and the State Government was directed to reconsider the case of the opponent herein and take a decision within a period of three months. The concerned authorities of the State Government reconsider the representation of the opponent herein and by a reasoned order dated 18.05.2011, the State Government had inclined to accept the submission made by the opponent herein and thereby not allowed the application of the opponent herein for change of date of birth. 3.4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the State Government, the opponent herein had filed Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011 before this Court. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge passed an order dated 07.06.2016 and had observed as under: "12. ... ......... I have reached to a conclusion that the approach of the State Government could not be said to have been in accordance with law. In light of the materials on record, the authorities ought to have effected the necessary correction in accordance with the provisions of law, once the certificate was issued by the JMFC way back on 12th September 1980. The evidence on record would suggest that the plaintiff's elder brother's birth date is 12.1.1951. In such circumstances, the birth date of the petitioner could not be 31.10.1951. It is possible that inadvertently or for any reason, in the school record, the date of birth has been shown to be 31.10.1951, but by leading cogent documentary evidence, the petitioner was able to show that the correct birth date is 6.2.1954. If the birth date would have been corrected as 6.2.1954, the petitioner would have retired in 2012. For the foregoing reasons, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The Government is directed to take appropriate legal steps in this regard so far as effecting the correction in the birth date of the petitioner is concerned, and on the basis of the same, notional effect be given so far as the retiral benefits are concerned. I clarify that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary for the period between 2009 and 2012. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Let this exercise be undertaken at the earliest and completed within a period of three months from today. I clarify that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary for the period between 2009 and 2012. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Let this exercise be undertaken at the earliest and completed within a period of three months from today. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the connected Civil Application also stands disposed of." 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above-referred order dated 07.06.2016 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011, the appellant - State Government preferred this appeal before this Court. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jirga Jhaveri appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that the learned single Judge has observed that the State Government cannot question the legality and validity of the certificate issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, but it seems that this has weighed the learned Single Judge that there is no further elaboration about consequence or the reason in particular for such observations. The order dated 18.05.2011 described Rule 171 of Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959 is referred to, but it cannot be ignored and the learned Single Judge has not discussed that how this rule is not applicable. He has further submitted that, the probation period was of two years, and the opponent herein had applied after the completion of the probation period, therefore, as per the Rules, opponent herein cannot apply for the change of date of birth, after completion of the probation period, which has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated that fact mentioned in the impugned order dated 18.05.2011 and the impugned judgment is based on the judgment of the Apex Court, but how it is applicable in view of the fact of the present case is not mentioned. 7. The learned Single Judge has not discussed that how the impugned order of the appellant is not in accordance with law and concluded that it is not in accordance with law, the birth date of the elder brother of the opponent herein and new date of birth of the opponent herein are in the same year, but it is not well discussed by the learned Single Judge. 8. 8. The learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in Meghraj Garg's case that the date of birth mentioned in the service book is conclusive and correct facts. He has submitted that, the impugned judgment and order passed in the above-referred Special Civil Application is required to be set aside, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas appearing for the opponent herein has mainly submitted that this is third rounds of litigations before this Court. In earlier two rounds, the opponent herein had filed Special Civil Application in which this Court had directed the concerned authorities of the State Government to consider and/or to reconsider the case of the opponent herein in accordance with law, but the concerned authorities had not considered the facts and circumstances in right manner and both the times dismissed the representations of the present opponent. Therefore, this is 3rd round of litigation before this Court. He has submitted that the concerned authorities had not considered the real fact and on an irrelevant facts, the representations of the present opponents were rejected, but thereafter, in the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge, the Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case in right manner, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has not erred in coming to the conclusion that the opponent herein is entitled for change of date of birth in the service book and thereby entitlement of the other benefits except the salary, such direction has been given to the concerned authorities of the appellant. Therefore, there is no merits in appeal and prayed to dismiss the same. 10. The facts of the case has been mentioned briefly earlier, and therefore, do not require to be repeated. The main question between the parties is regarding the amending of the date of birth in the service book and then after consequential benefits. It is not in dispute that the birth date written in the service book as 31.10.1951 and the opponent herein wanted to change the same on the basis of the certificate issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 12.09.1980. It is not in dispute that the birth date written in the service book as 31.10.1951 and the opponent herein wanted to change the same on the basis of the certificate issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 12.09.1980. It is not in dispute that the opponent herein appointed as a Mamlatdar by way of direct recruitment on 15.06.1978 and afterwards, promoted as Deputy Collector, and thereafter, retired as Additional Collector on reaching the age of superannuation, considering the date of birth as 31.10.1951. Earlier this Court had ordered twice for consideration and reconsideration of the representations of the opponent herein and on both the occasions, the concerned authorities of the State rejected the representations on the basis of one or other circulars of the Government. 11. Earlier in the judgment of Special Civil Application No. 11588 of 2008, this Court had considered that the opponent herein appointed as Mamlatdar in the year 1978 and application for change of date of birth was made on 11.12.1980. As per the case of the opponent herein, application for change of date of birth has been made before the completion of probation period or before five years of the services. It has come on the record that the Judicial Magistrate First Class had issued a certificate on 12.09.1980 and thereby declare that date of birth of the opponent herein is 06.02.1954. It is the case of the appellant that the application for change of date of birth is made after the completion of the probation period and it is required that such type of applications shall be preferred before the completion of probation period, but at the same time in the impugned order dated 18.05.2011 which has been challenged in Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011, what was the date of completion of probation period is not mentioned in the order of the appellant dated 18.05.2011. But in the order dated 08.05.2008, the appellant has stated that the probation is completed on 04.02.1982, whereas, the original representation was sent on 11.12.1980, and therefore, it is clear that the representation was sent before completion of the probation period. 12. Now looking to the judgment of Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011, it appears that it has been considered that the representation made by the opponent herein in the year 1980, before the completion of the probation period. 12. Now looking to the judgment of Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011, it appears that it has been considered that the representation made by the opponent herein in the year 1980, before the completion of the probation period. Eventhough, in the order of the State Government dated 18.05.2011 it has been held that the application for change of birth date made by the opponent herein, after the completion of probation period. In the above-mentioned impugned judgment it is rightly held that it is factually incorrect. 13. In the impugned judgment and order of Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011, it has been held that at the time of exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court can take into account of the entire facts and circumstances, which do not require any interference. 14. The judgment of Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011 contained that the order of the State Government dated 18.05.2011 contained the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Megraj Garg (CA No. 1591 of 2006), in the impugned judgment and order, the judgment has been taken into consideration, but not as a whole, which has been taken in the impugned order of the State Government. In the order of the State Government dated 18.05.2011, the above-mentioned judgment of the Apex Court has been dealt with and observation No. 2 has been considered that 'the only exception to this is that the government servant can make an application for correction of age as per the rules'. In the impugned order of this Court, in the above-mentioned Special Civil Application, this observation has not been dealt with, but at the same time, in this connection, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Ms.) Binapani Dei and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269 has been referred. Now closely looking to the above-mentioned citation of Dr. Binapani (supra), it reveals that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered all the facts and circumstances before the Court, and particularly, the fact that there were four different birth dates of Dr. Binapani in the different institutions. Moreover, Dr. Mishra had investigated and prepared a report. Such fact of four different birth dates and report of Dr. Mishra were not given to Dr. Binapani in the different institutions. Moreover, Dr. Mishra had investigated and prepared a report. Such fact of four different birth dates and report of Dr. Mishra were not given to Dr. Binapani and only the question was asked in the show cause notice that why the birth date of Dr. Binapani should not be changed from April 10, 1910 to May 9, 1907. In view of the above-mentioned factual aspects, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that not providing all facts and circumstances regarding four different birth dates in different institutions as well as not providing the investigating officer of Dr. Mishra, proper opportunity has not been given to Dr. Binapani, and therefore, there was breach of principle of natural justice, and therefore, the judgment of the High Court was confirmed, which has set aside the order of the State Government. In the above-mentioned situation, the Apex Court had interfered with the order on the basis that there was breach of principle of natural justice. In the present case, it is not the case of the opponent herein that no opportunity has been offered or provided, and therefore, here, in this case, there is no question of breach of principle of natural justice. 15. In the above-mentioned impugned judgment of Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011 decided on 07.06.2016, it was contained that how could the State Government questioned the legality and validity of the certificate issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in accordance with the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). 16. The entire case of the opponent herein based upon the certificate issued by the JMFC, Vadiya on 12.09.1980, declaring the date of birth of the opponent herein as 06.02.1954. 17. Here, in the present case, there are two birth dates of the opponent herein, viz. (I) date of birth as 31.10.1951, which is mentioned in the service book of the opponent herein, and (II) date of birth as 06.02.1954 which has been declared as the birth date by the JMFC, Vadiya. The aforesaid two dates of birth will be considered in this judgment as old birth date and new birth date respectively. 18. The record reveals that the certificate has been issued by the JMFC, Vadiya, declaring the birth date of the opponent herein as 06.02.1954. The aforesaid two dates of birth will be considered in this judgment as old birth date and new birth date respectively. 18. The record reveals that the certificate has been issued by the JMFC, Vadiya, declaring the birth date of the opponent herein as 06.02.1954. The above-mentioned certificate has been issued by the JMFC on the basis of the certificate of small pox vaccination, the affidavit of the opponent himself and affidavit of his father. Now in view of the above-mentioned certificate, the opponent herein wants to change the date of birth in the service book. 19. The question arise whether the JMFC, Vadiya has jurisdiction and authority to issue such type of a declaration. In this regard, it is not in dispute that the opponent herein born at Biliya, Tal.: Morbi. If, the opponent wants to register his date of birth in the register of Birth and Death at his birth place, then as per the provisions of the Act, he has to obtain the order from the JMFC to record the birth date in the register of the birth and death. It will be appropriate here to consider the respective provision of the Act, which are as follows: "13. Delayed registration of births and deaths: (1) Any birth of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified therefore, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. (2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government. (3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. (3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. (4) The provisions of this section shall without prejudice to any action that may be taken against a person for failure on his part to register any birth or death within the time specified therefore and any such birth or death may be registered during the pendency of any such action." 20. In view of the above-mentioned provisions of law, more particularly, Section 13(3), the only certificate to declare birth date of opponent herein is not enough, but it is required to have an order upon the authority to register the birth date of the opponent in the register of birth and death. Here, in the present case, no such type of order upon the appropriate authority has been passed by the JMFC, Vadiya, but only a certificate has been issued, and that is only for the declaration of birth date. It can be appropriate here to consider that why such type of certificate has been issued by the JMFC and not the order upon the authority who can register the birth of the opponent herein. The answer is very simple. The JMFC of Vadiya cannot ordered any authority of Morbi or any Village, viz. Baliya, outside its jurisdiction, and therefore, JMFC, Vadiya was not in a position to order for registration of birth of the opponent herein and it appears that therefore such type of certificate has been issued. Now, looking to the Act, such type of certificate cannot be issued, as there is no such type of provisions in the Act. 21. The following aspects are considered to decide the present Letters Patent Appeal: (A) As mentioned above, the entire case of the opponent herein based upon the certificate of the JMFC, Vadiya dated 12.09.1980, but at the same time, as discussed above, such type of certificate cannot be issued by the JMFC under the provisions of the Act, but only the order to register the birth date can be passed. Here, in the present case, the JFMC has not passed any order for registration of the birth of the opponent as discussed above and in the above-mentioned circumstances, as opponent resides at Biliya, Tal.: Morbi, whereas, JMFC has jurisdiction of Bagsara, Vadiya Taluka only, therefore, no order is passed by the JMFC, but only certificate has been issued which is not as per the above-mentioned provision of law. Not only that but the opponent herein had instituted the Civil Suit being No. 127 of 1996 which has been decided by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar on 24.03.2003, in which the Suit was decreed and the authority was directed to record new birth date of the opponent herein in the service book, and thereafter, the State had preferred an Appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2005 before the District Court, Jamnagar and the said appeal was allowed by the Principal District Judge, Jamnagar vide judgment and order dated 07.08.2007 and the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 127 of 1996 was set aside. (B) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Principal District Judge, the opponent herein had preferred Special Civil Application No. 27816 of 2007 before this Court and the said Special Civil Application was disposed of, on 29.10.2007, in which it was ordered that the opponent herein had to apply before the competent authority by way of a representation and the competent authority to decide the representation. In the said Special Civil Application, the judgment and order of the Appellate Court, Jamnagar was not considered and decided, and therefore, it remains as it was. Moreover, the prayers for the representation has been made before this Court in the above-mentioned Special Civil Application by the learned advocate of the opponent herein. Therefore, the judgment and order of the Appellate Court, Jamnagar remains untouched and not set aside. (C) This Court has not set aside the judgment and order of the District Judge, Jamnagar passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2005 in any proceedings before it. Therefore, the judgment and order of the Appellate Court, Jamnagar remains untouched and not set aside. (C) This Court has not set aside the judgment and order of the District Judge, Jamnagar passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2005 in any proceedings before it. (D) In view of the above-mentioned facts that there is no provision for certificate of the JMFC in the Act, and only provision is regarding the order of the JMFC, the District Court, Jamnagar has set aside the judgment and order of the Civil Court, Jamnagar and District Court, Jamnagar has held that the certificate issued by the JMFC, Vadiya is without jurisdiction and authority. Moreover, the entire appeal was disposed of by the District Court, Jamnagar on merits and not only on the point of limitation and jurisdiction. Therefore, the certificate issued by the JMFC dated 12.09.1980 louse its importance. (E) Whenever the representation made by the opponent herein as per the direction of this Court before the competent authority of the State Government, at that stage, the competent authority had taken into consideration different government resolutions, notifications, circulars, etc. and then after the representation of the opponent herein was rejected. (F) In the impugned order, the competent authority had taken into consideration the certificate of the JMFC issued on 12.09.1980, but at the same time, it has also taken into consideration the judgment of the appellant means the Court of District Judge, Jamnagar, in which it has been considered that the certificate issued is without jurisdiction and authority and decree of the Civil Court was set aside, and therefore, in such circumstances, the competent authority of the State Government has rejected the representation of the opponent herein. (G) As stated in the impugned order as well as earlier order of the competent authority rejecting the application of the opponent herein, it has been mentioned that the change of date of birth can be made on the basis of the school leaving certificate, the SSC certificate, in which the date of birth is mentioned, the certificate issued by the authority of birth and death certificate. At the same time, in the Rules itself, it has not been mentioned that on the basis of the certificate from the JMFC, the date of birth can be changed. Moreover, the government resolutions, circulars, notifications, etc. At the same time, in the Rules itself, it has not been mentioned that on the basis of the certificate from the JMFC, the date of birth can be changed. Moreover, the government resolutions, circulars, notifications, etc. are not challenged by the opponent herein, in which only the above-mentioned certificate can be used for the purpose of change of date of birth which does not include the certificate of the JMFC. (H) The opponent herein had with the representation as well as whenever required, mentioned that after letter dated 06.03.1982 from the Collector office, Amreli informing the opponent herein that his representation dated 12.12.1980 had been rejected. He had made representations so many times before the competent authority, but the competent authority had not answered. But at the same time, such type of representation made after 06.03.1982 has not been produced by the opponent herein before any concerned authority or the Court, and it is only pleadings, without support of any useful document/documentary evidence. (I) The first order of the Government, rejecting the representation of the opponent herein regarding change of date of birth which has been sent by the Government separately and directly to the opponent herein in the year 1982, the same has not been produced by the opponent herein in any of the proceedings, not only that but when that order was challenged before the Civil Court at Jamnagar being Civil Suit No. 127 of 1996, that order of the government was not produced which has been mentioned in the judgment of the District Court, Jamnagar in Regular Civil appeal No. 44 of 2005. (J) The order of the government which has been passed after the representation dated 11.02.1980 of the opponent herein, which has been separately sent to the opponent herein and mentioned in the letter of Collector office, Amreli dated 06.03.1982, has not been set aside. Therefore, it can be considered that it is in existence. However, the opponent herein had tried by way of the Civil Suit No. 127 of 1996 before the Civil Court, Jamnagar and Civil Court has also considered the same, but at the same time, District Court, Jamnagar had set aside the judgment and order of the Civil Court in the above-mentioned Civil Suit. Therefore, the 1st order of the government passed in the year 1982 against the representation of the opponent herein is not set aside. Therefore, the 1st order of the government passed in the year 1982 against the representation of the opponent herein is not set aside. (K) The first representation of the opponent herein had been rejected by the government in the year 1982, and thereafter, 14 years have been passed and in the year 1996, opponent herein had instituted Civil Suit No. 127 of 1996 before the Civil Court, Jamnagar. In this regard, the opponent herein had tried to explain the delay of 14 years and pleaded that he had made representations before the competent authority before the State Government for change of date of birth. But such type of representations are not produced before any court or the competent authority of the government. 22. Earlier at the time of considering the representation by the Government, the opponent herein was directed by the competent authority of the government to produce the documentary evidences just like age when he started the study, age when he produced himself for the examination of SSC, age when he had applied for the post of Mamlatdar. In this regard, no documentary evidences have been produced by the opponent herein before the competent authority of the Government. 23. As discussed above, the main base for the entire case of the opponent herein is based upon the certificate issued on 12.09.1980 by the JMFC, Vadiya declaring that the date of birth of the opponent as 06.02.1954 (new date of birth). But as discussed above, the certificate issued by the JMFC, Vadiya is not useful to the opponent herein. Therefore, the case of opponent herein becomes rootless. 24. Here it is clarified that, it is a valuable right of every citizen to take available legal steps. The opponent herein had taken steps firstly by way of representation in the year 1980-1982, secondly, in the Civil Court and Appellate Court at Jamnagar, and thirdly, before this Court and then after representations. 25. 24. Here it is clarified that, it is a valuable right of every citizen to take available legal steps. The opponent herein had taken steps firstly by way of representation in the year 1980-1982, secondly, in the Civil Court and Appellate Court at Jamnagar, and thirdly, before this Court and then after representations. 25. In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as discussions we come to the conclusion that the appellant herein has established that there is an error in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 07.06.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011, and therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant-State is hereby allowed and the judgment and order dated 07.06.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8719 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside, with no orders as to costs.