Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 759 (MP)

Hakim Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2024-12-05

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, VIVEK JAIN

body2024
ORDER : Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ. Aggrieved by an order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.18841 of 2023 in dismissing the writ petitioner's plea challenging the order of rejection of his claim by the respondents for correction of date of birth, the writ petitioner/appellant is in appeal. 2. Brief facts leading to this intra-court appeal are that appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by an order dated 01.01.1988 and posted at Primary School Majhgawa, District Panna. He was appointed as Warden in the year 1994 and continued on the said post till the date of alleged retirement. A letter was sent by the District Organizer to the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Raipura, District Panna seeking verification regarding date of birth of the appellant. The Principal wrote a letter dated 17.12.2022 whereby verifying that the date of birth of the appellant is 01.07.1965. The respondent No.4 wrote a letter dated 05.01.2023 to the Principal to get the mark-sheet of the appellant verified from the Board of Secondary Education so that further action can be taken. Thereafter, the Principal Raipura wrote a letter dated 10.01.2023 to the respondent No.4 mentioning that the Board of Secondary Education has verified the mark-sheet and the date of birth of the appellant has been verified as 01.07.1965. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 sent a letter dated 27.01.2023 and 12.04.2023 to the respondent No.2 seeking guidance with regard to correction of date of birth from 01.07.1960 to 01.07.1965. However, by the order dated 28.06.2023, the respondent No.4 informed the appellant that in his service book, his date of birth has been mentioned as 01.07.1960, therefore, he would retire from service on 30.06.2022. Thereafter, the additional charge of Warden of Government Tribal Boys Hostel, Fatehpur has been given to one Raviram Patel. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the respondent No.4 - the District Organizer, Tribal Affairs Department, District Panna in File No.673/Est./2023 (Annexure P-5 to the writ petition), the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has been dismissed. Hence, the appellant is in appeal. 4. During the course of hearing, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State has produced the service book of the appellant and submitted that in the said service book, the date of birth is mentioned as 01.07.1960. Hence, the appellant is in appeal. 4. During the course of hearing, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State has produced the service book of the appellant and submitted that in the said service book, the date of birth is mentioned as 01.07.1960. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority is justified and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein. 5. We have perused the service book of the appellant. The entry of date of birth of the appellant in service book is shown in service book to be based upon the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination of the year 1986 and in the certificate which is at page 16 of the writ petition, the date of birth of the appellant is recorded as 01.07.1965. The said certificate was issued way back on 30.06.1986. However, while making entry in the service book at the initial stage, the respondents have committed a mistake and recorded the date of birth as 01.07.1960 instead of 01.07.1965. No certificate mentioning date of birth as 01.07.1960 is available in the service record. Thus, by the impugned order dated 28.06.2023, the appellant has been wrongly retired from service with effect from 30.06.2022 on the ground that as per the service record, he has completed the age of superannuation of 62 years. The learned Single Judge has not considered the original certificate of the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1986 which is at page 16 of the writ petition wherein the date of birth of the appellant has been recorded as 01.07.1965. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is entitled to be reinstated in service. 6. Learned Government Advocate submits that the question of grant of any relief would not arise because the appellant has filed the petition for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service. The said contention of the learned Government Advocate may not be correct. Inasmuch as, it is already noticed that the date of birth of the appellant as per the certificate at page 16 of the writ petition was wrongly recorded by the respondents in the service record at the initial stage. The said contention of the learned Government Advocate may not be correct. Inasmuch as, it is already noticed that the date of birth of the appellant as per the certificate at page 16 of the writ petition was wrongly recorded by the respondents in the service record at the initial stage. Thus, the case of the appellant was not for correction at the fag end of service but it was for cancellation of the wrong entry made by the respondents and to get recorded the correct date of birth in service record as 01.07.1965. It is not a case where the employee is disputing the recorded date of birth on basis of some new material. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is allowed. The order dated 04.08.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.18841 of 2023 is set aside. The impugned order dated 28.06.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent No.4 - District Organizer, Tribal Affairs, Department, Panna in File No.673/Est./2023 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service forthwith, with 50% back wages. We hereby make it clear that if the salary has not been paid to the appellant for the period he has actually worked, 100% salary with all applicable dues shall be paid to the appellant. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed and disposed of. The original service record is hereby returned to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State.