Dimoreson Jana vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors

The petitioner by this instant writ petition seeks a mandamus for correction of the Date of Birth which he claims was recorded as 26.12.1958, instead of 26.12.1962. The further case is that the petitioner had submitted all the required documents but the respondents did not cause the same to be corrected compelling him to come before this Court.

Mr. S. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner was serving in the office of the Child Development Officer, I.C.D.S. Project, Umsning, Ri-Bhoi and has been in service from 01.03.1989. He submits that as per the H.S.L.C. certificate he would be due for superannuation in December, 2020 but he had been made to retire in December 2017. The learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the certificate issued by the Meghalaya Board of School Education (MBOSE) dated 03.07.1978 and also the Admit Card indicating that the Date of Birth is 26.12.1962. He further submits that in the Draft Gradation List dated 21st August, 2013, against his name, no date of birth is shown. He submits that therefore as no date was shown, the petitioner informed the authorities about the correct date of birth and had also submitted the required testimonials, but however, the date of birth was never corrected, and as a result he had been made to retire prematurely. Learned counsel therefore prays that the respondents having illegally retired the petitioner from service, they are liable to be directed to record the correct date of birth in the service book of the petitioner and consequently allow him to re-join service until he attains the age of superannuation.

Per contra, Mr. H. Kharmih, learned GA for the respondents submits that the bio data of the Government employee is recorded in Part-I of the Service Book on the basis of the information given by the employee at the time of joining service. He submits that the date of birth, therefore, as shown in the Service Book will be the correct date of birth, more so, when the petitioner at the time of joining, had accepted the same, signed it and the document was also duly authenticated which shows that his Date of Birth is 26.12.1958.

In reply to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there had been an attempt by the petitioner to correct the date of birth after the Draft Gradation List, the learned GA submits that there are no materials on record to substantiate the same or to reflect as to whether any application for correction of the date of birth was made. He further submits that after the Draft Gradation List was published, objections were called for, if any, and thereafter, in the Final Gradation List the Date of Birth shown therein as 26.12.1958. He further submits that as per records the petitioner while in service, had not made any attempt to correct the date of birth either in the Service Book nor in the Gradation List, as such he is estopped from assailing the same at this stage for correction. The learned GA draws the attention of this Court to the letter dated 1st September, 2017 whereby the request for change of the date of birth has been rejected by the competent authority. He lastly, submits that the writ petition having no merit is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and examined the materials on record. Though, the petitioner in this writ petition has placed on record documents such as pass certificate and his admit card to substantiate that his Date of Birth is 26.12.1962, his inaction during the years in service where he could have agitated the same, has worked against him especially at this late stage. I have examined the Service Book as filed by the learned GA by way of an additional affidavit, which is also acknowledged by the petitioner, where it has been clearly indicated that the Date of Birth is 26.12.1958. Another aspect which has been examined is the Draft Gradation List dated 21st August, 2013, wherein the date of birth is not indicated, but in the Final Gradation List dated 31st January, 2014 at Annexure-I of the counter affidavit, his Date of Birth is shown as 26.12.1958. The petitioner seems to have issued a legal notice on 25th July, 2017 upon the respondent No. 2 who by a well reasoned order dated 1st September, 2017 had examined the matter in depth and has also recorded that even in the office of the Treasury, Nongpoh from where the payment of salary was made, the same date of birth as that with the Department is recorded. Further, as per the order dated 1st Sept. 2017, the writ petitioner even before the Treasury had also signed the proforma in which the date of birth is recorded as 26.12.1958.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the facts as they pertain in the instant writ petition and there being absence of materials to substantiate the plea of the writ petitioner that steps had been taken to correct the date of birth at the relevant time, I find no merit in the case and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, before parting with the records, it is directed that the respondents shall on representation made by the petitioner, release the retirement benefits of the petitioner as admissible as expeditiously as possible.

No order as to costs.