Mohar Singh vs Union Of India & Others

Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)

(Through Video Conferencing)

The applicant was working as Casual Khalasi with the Railways since 1986. Subsequently, he was appointed as unscreened substitute (Cleaner) on

13.07.1994 in Northern Railway. He came to know that his Date of Birth (DOB) in the monthly pay slip has been shown incorrectly. He made several

representations for correcting the same since 2013. Thereafter, the applicant filed OA No. 815/2018. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.02.2018

disposed of the OA directing the respondents to consider the representations of the applicant and pass reasoned and speaking order. In terms of the

order passed by the Tribunal, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 25.06.2018 without taking into account the submissions made by

the applicant in his representations. Vide this impugned order, the respondents rejected his claim for change of his DOB from 06.07.1961 to

06.07.1968. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.06.2018, this OA has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing and setting aside of the

impugned order dated 25.06.2018 and for a direction to the respondents to correct his DOB as 06.07.1968 in place of 06.07.1961.

The applicant contends that his correct DOB i.e. 06.07.1968 has been mentioned in various records and documents including the casual labour

services record, in a few pay slips and in various other documents submitted by him including Ration Card, Aadhar Card and Pan Card, etc. It is also

stated that he made his first representation in the year 2013, when he came to know of the incorrect DOB mentioned in one of the payslips. It is also

claimed that he is illiterate and, therefore, was not able to correctly read and understand the service record in which the DOB was recorded as

06.07.1961. The applicant has also expressed urgency in disposal of the present OA as he is about to superannuate on 31.07.2021 as per the incorrect

DOB stated in his service record. The applicant has placed reliance upon the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 788/2015 dated 04.10.2016 and the

order of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 11069/2016 dated 05.12.2017.

Respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the applicant was appointed as Casual Labour (Cleaner) on 13.07.1994 and, thereafter, he was

screened on 05.12.1996 and posted in Delhi Division of Northern Railway. It is stated that the applicant submitted his representation for the first time

in 2013 alleging that his DOB has been wrongly recorded in the service record as 06.07.1961 and that the same should be corrected as 06.07.1968.

Respondents further submit that the applicant signed his service record wherein his correct DOB is mentioned as 06.07.1961 and has also inspected

his service record on two occasions i.e. in the year 1999 and 2014. He has made his first representation after more than 20 years. The applicant’s

claim that his correct DOB as 06.07.1968 has been reflected in various other documents including a few pay slips, Aadhar Card, Ration Card, etc. is

not tenable in terms of the extant rules and the very fact that the correct DOB as recorded in the service book is 06.07.1961.

Today, I heard Mr. A. K. Bhakt, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents, through

video conferencing.

After perusing the record, it is evident that the OA has not been drafted carefully and suffers from various anomalies and mistakes including the

very crucial DOB. In Para 1.3 of Page-2, the incorrect DOB of the applicant (as per the applicant) is mentioned as 07.06.1961. Similarly on Page-8,

Para-8 i.e. Relief Sough in Item (i) the wrong DOB (as per applicant) has been indicated as 07.06.1961 and the correct DOB has been indicated as

06.07.1068. These, however, have been treated as typographical errors.

The applicant was initially appointed as Casual Labour (Cleaner) on 13.07.1994 in the Delhi Division of Northern Railway. He was subsequently

screened for regularisation vide letter dated 15.12.1996 and was listed at Sl. No. 380 and his DOB is indicated therein as 06.07.1961. The same has

been recorded in his service book, which is signed by the applicant. On two other occasions i.e. on 24.08.1999 and 24.07.2014, he has seen the service

book and signed the same in acknowledgement. The applicant made his first representation on 21.10.2013 and subsequently on 05.05.2014, 08.04.2016

and 21.10.2017 requesting that his DOB as reflected in the service book as 06.07.1961 is incorrect and the same should be corrected as 06.07.1968.

This plea was also raised by the applicant in OA No. 815/2018 filed by him before Principal Bench of this Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated

20.02.2018 disposed of the OA directing the respondents to pass speaking orders on the representations of the applicant dated 08.04.2016 and

21.10.2017. In terms of the order of this Tribunal dated 20.02.2018, the respondents passed a compliance order dated 25.06.2018 stating that the

applicant was appointed on 13.07.1994 as Cleaner in the Mechanical Department and that his DOB has been correctly mentioned as 06.07.1961 in his

service record which has been seen and acknowledged by the applicant on two subsequent occasions i.e. on 24.08.1999 and 24.07.2014. Reference is

also made to the Master Circular 12 regarding “procedure for recording date of birth on entering railway serviceâ€. The claim of the applicant was

rejected vide this impugned order by the competent authority. The applicant has been relying on a few documents including list of casual labour of

1994, copy of the Pan Card, Ration Card and Aadhar Card and a few pay slips, etc., wherein his DOB has been indicated as 06.07.1968.

It is a fact that the applicant’s DOB is mentioned as 06.07.1961 in the service record, which has been signed by him. He has twice inspected

this service record and signed the same in 1999 and 2014. Other documents provided by him are basically the documents that are relevant for the

purpose of residence proof or income tax, etc. He has not been able to produce any birth certificate or any school certificate as a proof of his DOB.

In the counter affidavit an official screening list issued by Delhi Division, Northern Railway dated 15.12.1996 is enclosed in which the applicant has

been placed at Sl. No. 380 and his DOB is mentioned as 06.07.1961. The subject matter of recording the DOB and subsequent alteration etc. has

been clearly outlined in the Railway Board’s Master Circular â€" 12. The Circular provides that no such request for change of DOB should be

entertained after completion of probation period or three years of service, whichever is earlier. In terms of Item â€"II of Master Circular - 12, one

time exception is given by the Railway Board for those who were in service on 03.12.1971 for alteration of DOB till 1973 and it is clearly mentioned

that at subsequent stage no request for alteration can be entertained if the same has not been accepted before completion of three years of service.

The applicant, despite the fact that, he was aware of formal screening list for regularisation and subsequently while signing the service record did not

challenge the DOB which was recorded as 06.07.1961. He made representations only after a lapse of about 20 years. The applicant has produced

certain documents in support of his claim for the DOB being 06.07.1968, but these all are the documents issued at a much later stage. The very fact

that he has seen and signed the service record for the DOB as 06.07.1961 not only at the time when the entries were being made but also

subsequently many years later in 1999 and 2014 makes it more than evident that he has no objection to the DOB as requested in the service book.

The applicant’s claim after more than two decades for correcting his DOB in the face of the service record and screening letter cannot be

sustained. The applicant has also approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 815/2018, with the same request. The impugned order dated 25.06.2018

which is under challenge in this OA passed by the respondents in terms of the directions given by the Tribunal covers all the aspects. There is no

infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

In view of the above mentioned, I do not find any merit in the claim of the applicant for change of his DOB. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending MA also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.