AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Having heard Mr. Lone Altaf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.Haqani and Mr.Irfan Andleeb, learned counsel for the respondents,
the writ petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal.
Prayer in the writ petition is as follows:-
(i) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to rectify their clerical error by treating the petitioner''s Date of Birth as
19.03.1959 instead of 19.03.1957 in terms of the Discharge Certificate by Board of School Education Srinagar.
(ii) That by issuance of writ of Mandamus whereby respondents may be directed to superannuate the petitioner in terms of real D.O.B i.e,
19.03.1959 instead of 19.03.1957 and release all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner.
Petitioner claims that he was appointed as daily wager in respondent-department in the year 1977 and brought on regular establishment as
Conductor in the year 1980 and then in 1993 he was promoted as Driver. In the year 2011, when he applied for loan, his date of birth was shown
as 19.03.1957, whereas, his correct date of birth is 19.03.1959.
From 2011 onwards, the petitioner moved several representations to the department to rectify the error, by recording correct date of birth, in
his service records. These representations are Annexure E/32 dated 24.9.2011, Annexure E/33 dated 4.6.2016 and Annexure-E/34. He has also
send a legal notice to the respondents on 03.06.2016-annexure E/35.
According to the petitioner the correction in his service records has been done without notice to him. He states that he was not aware of the
correction made by the department in his service records.
Mr. Haqani, learned counsel for respondents flatly refutes the contention made by the petitioner and states that the service record has been
tampered and the date of birth has been shown as 19.03.1959, whereas, as per school records it is 19.03.1957. Petitioner refutes this allegation.
Learned counsel for the respondents further states that to the knowledge of the petitioner the error was rectified in the service records and the
petitioner recorded his signatures on several papers of service record. This fact is also refuted by the learned counsel for the petit ioner.
In this view of the matter, the issue raised is as to what is the correct date of birth of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon (2014)12 SCC 570 titled Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw.
Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner is trying to reopen the case which has already been concluded and he has been
superannuated.
Be that as it may, the issue is as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner recorded correctly has been tampered by the petitioner, as alleged
by the respondents or the date of birth has been wrongly recorded in the service records by the respondents, as alleged by the petitioner, is a
matter for verification of original records. The Court is not inclined to go into this issue as it is a disputed question of fact.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith all connected MPs directing the petitioner to appear before the competent authority and
establish his actual date of birth in service records. He may be entitled to produce whatever documents including judgment of Supreme Court
before the authority and the decision will be taken by the authority on its own merits and according to the service rules applicable within a period of
eight weeks from the date copy of this order is served on them. Petitioner, if aggrieved by the consideration is at liberty to seek appropriate legal
remedy.