A. Pentaiah vs The Personnel Officer, B.H.E.L.

Radhakrishna Rao, J.—This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who was an employee in the B.H.E.L. for issuance of a writ of mandamus calling for the records pertaining to proceedings No. P.A/C5/8525/1829025/1069 dated 3.12.1.986 issued by the respondent-Company and to quash the same. The impugned proceedings reads as follows:

"On attaining the superannuation age, Sri A. Pentaiah (Staff No. 1829025), Sr. Security Guard, Grade III of Security Department will retire from the Company''s service on the afternoon of 24th January, 1987.

His dues, if any, will be paid to him on receipt of "No Dues Certificates" from all concerned."

The Petitioner''s case is that he was only 53 years of age and the date of birth has been wrongly noted as 1.1.1929. According to him his actual date of birth is 10.8.1933. In support of his case, he filed an age certificate given by the Medical Officer, Mandal Primary Health Centre, Chagallu R.R. District wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was aged about 53 years and that his date of birth is 10.8.1933. The petitioner''s case is that when once a Medical Certificate has been filed, that certificate ought to have been considered and acted upon by the respondent-Company and that the entry made in the service register at the time of his joining the service should not have been made the basis for issuing the impugned proceedings. His further case is that he was an uneducated person and the mention of the date as 1.1.1929 cannot be given any credence, as there is no other corroborative material in support of the said entry.

The respondent has filed a counter stating that the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 20 years on the date of his enrolment in military service i.e. 25.5.1949. Thus his year of birth was worked out as 1929 and the date and month of birth were taken as 1st January of the said year in terms of Regulation No. 13(b) (ii) of B.H.E.L. Security Force Regulations which reads as follows:

"In the case of an employee, the year of whose birth is known but not the date, the 1st January shall be treated as the date of birth."

It is also stated in the counter that as no other evidence in support of the date of birth was produced by the petitioner, the date of birth was rightly taken as 1.1.1929. It is also relevant to mention that in the year 1981, the petitioner applied for grant of special family planning increment for having undergone family planning operation on 14.10.1980. In reply, he was informed in writing on 16.1.1981 that his date of birth was 1.1.1929 and his age being more than 50 years on the date of family planning operation, he was not eligible for grant of family planning increment under the scheme. On being informed accordingly, the petitioner remained silent without any demur.

There are certain procedures and Rules with regard to change of date of birth. The petitioner is not a person who was employed for the first time in B.H.E.L. Initially, he joined military service and his age was mentioned as 20 years on the date of enrolment in military service i.e. on 25.5.1949. Since the date and month of his birth were not known, the respondent-Company took the date of birth as 1st January of the year in terms of Regulation 13(b)(ii) of B.H.E.L. Security Force Regulations.

It is not possible for Medical Officer to assess the exact date of birth or the age of a person, and it is easy for an employee to procure such a certificate. The age of the petitioner as disclosed from the Military Discharge Certificate is entitled to more weight and credence than the certificate issued by a Medical Officer which is just prior to the receipt of notice about attaining age of superannuation. The petitioner has not filed any document except the age certificate obtained by him in the year 1986. Even though he joined the service in the year 1974 and he was intimated by the Company on a prior occasion that he has already crossed 50 years of age and, therefore, is not entitled to. Family Planning increments, he kept quiet till the date of retirement and now says that his date of birth is wrongly mentioned. Unless clinching evidence is produced in support of the petitioner''s claim and the same conforms to the Rules and Regulations, it is not possible for this Court to reinvestigate the issue.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.