Dr. S. Divakar vs Union of India, Ministry of Science and Technology and Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI)

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in OA No. 307/2012 is called in question in this Writ Petition. By the said Order, the Central Administrative Tribunal has confirmed the order dated 30.3.2012 superannuating the petitioner from the post of Scientist-C with effect from 30.3.2012. The records reveal that the petitioner joined the services as Scientist-C in the second respondent organization on 21.3.1987. At the time of submitting the application itself, he had mentioned that his date of birth is 12.9.1950. However, he had also mentioned that his correct date of birth is 12.9.1953. However, since his SSLC Marks Card was bearing the date of birth as 12.9.1950, he had mentioned his date of birth as 12.9.1950 in his application form while joining for duties. Accepting the said date of birth i.e. 12.9.1950, the service records were made. If the date of birth of the petitioner were to be 12.9.1950, he would have attained the age of superannuation on 12.9.2010. However, in the mean while, the petitioner got the entry relating to his date of birth changed in SSLC Marks Card as 12.9.1953 from 12.9.1950. Based on such corrected SSLC Marks card, it seems that entry of his date of birth was changed in the original Application submitted by him at the time of joining for duties by a Section Officer on 21.11.1988. Based on such subsequent correction in the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment, the petitioner claims that his service records are also be altered as required under law effecting the true date of his birth as 12.9.1953 and therefore, contends that he should have been allowed to continue in service upto 12.9.2013.

The very contentions were raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority as well as before the Central Administrative Tribunal which came to be negatived.

The only question to be decided is as to:

Whether the petitioner''s date of birth is duly changed as required under the relevant rules in his service register or not?

According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 12.9.1953, as is clear from the altered date of entry in his SSLC Marks Card. Such alteration has taken place in SSLC Marks card in the year 1988 as per Annexure-A6. Such changed SSLC Marks card, according to the petitioner is submitted before the Section Officer of the second respondent on 21.11.1988 and accordingly, the Section Officer has altered the Date of Birth in the original application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment. Even assuming that the entry relating to date of birth of the petitioner is changed subsequently in SSLC Marks card and his application seeking appointment, the same may not ensure to the benefit of the petitioner in as much as the service records are not changed as required under relevant rules. The relevant rule on this point in Note 6 of F.R. 56 RETIREMENT PAGE 259. Note 6 of which reads thus:

Note 6. - The date on which a Government servant attains the age of fifty-eight years or sixty years, as the case may be, shall be determined with reference to the date of both declared by the government servant at the time of appointment and accepted by the Appropriate Authority on production, as far as possible, of confirmatory documentary evidence such as High School or Higher Secondary or Secondary School Certificate or extracts from Birth Register. The date of birth so declared by the Government servant and accepted by the Appropriate Authority shall not be subject to any alteration except as specified in this note.

An alteration of date of birth of a Government servant can be made, with the sanction of a Ministry or Department of the Central Government, or the Comptroller and Auditor-General in regard to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, or an Administrator of a Union Territory under which the Government servant is serving, if-

(a) a request in this regard is made within five years of his entry into Government service:-

(b) it is clearly established that a genuine bone fide mistake has occurred; and

(c) the date of birth so altered would not make him ineligible to appear in any School or University or Union Public Service Commission examination in which he had appeared, or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered Government service.

From the aforementioned rule, it is clear that the date of birth declared by the Government servant in his original application seeking appointment and accepted by the appropriate authority shall not be subjected to any alteration except as specified in note No. 6 of F.R. 56 RETIREMENT 259. An alteration of date of birth of the Government servant can be made with the sanction of the Ministry or department of Central Government or Comptroller of Auditor General with regard to persons serving in Indian Audit and Accounts Department. Thus, it is clear that the sanction of the Ministry or the department of Central Government shall be obtained for changing the entry in service records. In the matter on hand, the petitioner has failed to get such, procedure followed. He had merely approached the Section Officer who has altered the original application of the petitioner seeking appointment itself. Such a procedure cannot ensure to the benefit of the petitioner. It is a clear case wherein the Section Officer has mis-conducted himself in altering the entry in the Application without sanction of the Ministry or Department of the Central Government. Therefore, the authorities as well as the tribunal are justified in concluding that the date of birth found in the service records shall be the basis for superannuating the petitioner. Since the order of the tribunal is justified, no interference is called for.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.