AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner Ghulam Nabs Shaikh appointed as Daily Wager on 181963: n Bemina Woolen Mills, at Srinagar was regularized against the post of
Cobler from 141984 in the grade of Rs. 7501000 At the time of engagement of the petitioner as Daily wager in August, 1968 and thereafter till the
petitioner was placed on regular basis in the above pay scale against the post of Cobler the petitioner at no point of time was asked to disclose his
date of birth by his employer (s). It was in his order of appointment (Order No. JKI/719/94 dated 6121994), issued by Jammu and Kashmir
Industries LimitedAnnexure P1, that the date of birth of the petitioner was shown and mentioned as 29941. No sooner the petitioner got
knowledge of the entry he made representation that his date of birth is 2941945 and placed his case thereto before the Respondents, Certificate of
birth issued by the Municipal Authorities (Annexure P2) was also placed before the respondents: The respondents refused to record his date of
birth as 2941945. The date of birth shown in the service records of the petitioner as 2991941, is against the facts. No opportunity was given to the
petitioner to put his case before the respondents Petitioner is an illiterate person and has no School leaving certificate/matriculation certificate to
prove his date of birth.
On these pleaded allegations the petitioner has prayed for being allowed to continue to serve in the office of his employer/respondents till
2942003 when he retires on super annotation after treating his date of birth as 29 41945, in his service records.
Respondents have filed reply. The maintainability of the petitioner is challenged on laches. The denial of opportunity of the petitioner to show age
is refuted The relief sought by the petitioner is stated to be based on false and based facts It is averred that the date of birth namely 2991941 has
been recorded at the instance of the petitioner in fails service records With a view to continue in service illegally and beyond superannuating age he
has manipulated the certificate from the Municipality with date of birth recorded as 29 4 1945 The certificate has not been accepted, because the
entry in the birth Register has been at the directions of the Municipal Magistrate. Srinagar and not otherwise. The certificate has been obtained
after about 30 years of service with the respondents. The correction of the age cannot be permitted at the fagend of the service of the petitioner.
The petition is prayed to be dismissed.
On motion considered and admitted.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working with respondents since
181968. It is not also in dispute that the petitioner was working continuously as Dailywager till 6121994, when petitioner was appointed as Cobler
and placed in the regular pay scale from 141994 against the available post. In the appointment order of regularizations of the petitioner, the date of
birth of petitioner is recorded as 2941941.
Petitioner's specific case is that his date of birth is 2941945 and not 2991941. The petitioner has based his date of birth dated 2941945 on the
birth entry in terms of certificate of birth issued by the Registrar Births and Deaths of Srinagar Municipality Certificate Annexure p2, is based on
directions of Municipal Magistrate, Srinagar in file No. 2215/1996 of Sub Judge, Municipal Magistrate, Srinagar. The record is available with the
file. The record reveals that the petitioner moved an application before the Municipal Magistrate, Srinagar on 171996. After proclamation and
taking other steps, the application was accepted by the Court below and Registrar of Births and Deaths Srinagar Municipality, was directed to
record the date of birth of the petitioner as 2941945 in the concerned register. However, while giving the aforesaid direction, it is placed on record
that the direction issued shall be binding only on the Registrar of Births and Deaths Srinagar Municipality and not on other public or private,
Government or Semi Govt. departments. Besides, it is a condition of certificate that the direction given by the Magistrate regarding entry of date of
birth of petitioner as 2941945, shall not confer any right on the petitioner. The nonapplicantRegistrar of Deaths and Births on receipt of the
direction, issued the prescribed certificate Annexure P2 in the prescribed form. It is expressly mentioned in the certificate that entry regarding the
date of birth as 2941945 shall not effect service records of the petitioner. Obviously, the claim of the petitioner, that his date of birth as 2941945
should be recorded in his service records, on the basis of the Municipal Certificate (Annexure P2), is not valid. At the most it is a piece of evidence
which the competent authority has not consider in conjunction with other material and documents placed before him to arrive at a decision
regarding the actual date of birth of the petitioner.
In terms of the pleadings, the claimed date of birth of the petitioner as put forth (as above) by the parties is a moot question. Whether2991941
the date of birth of petitioner as recorded in his service records is correct or 2941945 birth date put forth by the petitioner after regularization of
his services, is correct, is a disputed question of fact, which would require to be enquired into and settled on inquiry after taking evidence and
documents on record. It involves a full dressed inquiry under normal civil law. The contention, whether2991941, the date of birth of petitioner is
recorded with the employer since last three decades and whether the sought change in date of birth is quite belated and sought at the fagend of
petitioners service with malafidies to earn undue benefit by extension in superannuating age, are again disputed questions of fact and law. Similarly
the contention of the petitioner, that being a daily wager, there was no requirement of his disclosing age earlier to his regularization during his three
decades service with the respondents and that he was not given any opportunity to put his case before the respondents, are matters in view of
counter assertions, not to be taken as proved facts and require to be determined on inquiry in the mode prescribed by applicable law.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to pursue alternative remedy to seek redressal of his grievance
regarding age inaccordance with law.
Record be returned to the court concerned.