AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 6/7/2004 issued by respondent no.2 and also order dated 30/11/2005 issued by the Executive Engineer, Div-XIII, Kadamba - Plateau pursuant to which the petitioner has been retired/relieved with effect from 30/11/2005. It is the case of the petitioner that he was born on 24/6/1950 and his birth date was registered on 29/6/1963. The petitioner joined the Electricity Department, Government of Goa as "Line man" on 30/07/1974. According to the petitioner, considering his date of birth as 24/6/1950 he ought to have been retired on 30/06/2008. However, he was illegally retired / relieved on 30/11/2005. In support of the petition, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of the birth certificate issued by the Directorate of Planning, Statistics and Evaluation, which discloses that the date of birth of the petitioner is 24/6/1950 and it was registered on 29/6/1963. The petitioner has also relied upon certificate issued by Shree Saraswati Vidyalaya, Divar - Goa, which discloses that the petitioner passed 4th standard in the year 1965.
On behalf of the respondent, affidavit has been filed by Mr. Nirmal Braganza, Chief Electrical Engineer. In his affidavit, he has stated that the petitioner was appointed as Helper in the Electricity Department, Government of Goa, vide order dated 23/7/1974 and at the time of his appointment, the petitioner had produced birth certificate No. 1524 issued by Civil Registration Services of Goa, Daman and Diu, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 18/11/1947. He claims that after verification and endorsement in the service book, the same was returned to the petitioner. It is further stated that at the time of joining the service the petitioner had given his date of birth as 18/11/1947 and thereafter the petitioner did not make any application for alteration of date of birth supported by documentary evidence. Reliance has been also placed upon the Note 6(a) of F.R. 56 which mandates that any change in date of birth has to be done within five (5) years of his entry into Government service.
The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder and along with the affidavit-in-rejoinder, he has placed on record birth certificate of one Moga Gaudo bearing registration no. 1524 in support of his contention that registration no. 1524 does not relate to the petitioner as claimed by the respondent but relates to one Moga Gaudo.
Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been illegally retired or relieved w.e.f. 30/11/2005 and he was entitled to continue in service till 30/06/2008 and as such is entitled for the monetary and consequential relief''s. Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel submits that the contention that the Birth certificate is returned to the petitioner after making entry in Service record as claimed in the affidavit of Mr. Nirmal Braganza, Chief Electrical Engineer, is not correct. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner''s date of birth as 18/11/1947 was wrongly entered by the respondent for which the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and therefore the petitioner is entitled for monetary benefits on account of the wrongful act on the part of the respondent in relieving him from the services.
Per contra Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in the service record on the basis of the Birth Certificate given by the petitioner himself and even in the service record, his date of birth was shown as 18/11/1947 and at no point of time the petitioner made an attempt to change his date of birth. Mr. Salkar further submitted that the petitioner even had signed the service record as on 29/10/2002 in which it is clearly mentioned that the date of birth of the petitioner is 18/11/1947. Mr. Salkar further contended that it is too late for the petitioner now to contend that his real date of birth is 24/06/1950 and not 18/11/1947 and to claim monetary relief''s thereon.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate, we are of the considered view that no case has been made out for grant of any relief to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has signed the service record as on 29/10/2002 in which his date of birth is shown as 18/11/1947. Admittedly, also in the service record, the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 18/11/1947. In terms of Note 6(a) FR 56, the petitioner was required to effect change in date of birth within a period of five years from the date of entering into government service which the petitioner has not done. This being the position, we do not find any ground to grant any relief to the petitioner solely on the ground that although in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent reference is made to birth certificate of the petitioner as bearing no. 1524 the Birth certificate bearing registration no. 1524 produced by the petitioner appears to be of Moga Gaudo and not of the petitioner. There are disputed questions of facts which, in our considered opinion, are not fit to be gone into in the Writ Petition.
Taking overall view of the matter and having regard to the settled law that any change in the birth date of a government servant should not be permitted at the fag end of his career, as held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which the petitioner deserves to be granted any relief. In view of the above, we do not find any merit to grant any relief to the petitioner. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. Needless to mention that dismissal of the Writ Petition would not come in way of the petitioner from availing of any other remedy, that may be available to him, in law.