Shankarlal Agrawal vs District Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit

T.K. Kaushal, J.—This petition has been preferred under Article 227, Constitution of India seeking relief to set aside the order dated 21.6.2011 passed by State Cooperative Tribunal Bhopal in First Appeal No. 154/2008, declining the claim of the petitioner in respect of alleged premature retirement.

Whether petitioner was born in the year 1935 or 1939 is the main cause of controversy highlighted in this petition.

Facts giving rise to this petition, in short are that, petitioner was working as Samiti Prabandak in District Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raisen. Since entry of column No.4 of service book regarding date of birth of employee was left unfilled, vide letter dated 30.11.1994 of the bank (Annexure-P-3), the petitioner was asked to submit proof of his date of birth so his retirement can be further processed. Thereafter vide letter dated 9.3.1995 (Annexure-P-2) petitioner was held due for retirement w.e.f. 31.3.1995.

Since petitioner was claiming his birth to be in the year 1939, consequently retirement in the year 1997, the petitioner raised a service dispute u/s 55(2) of the MP. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short as Act of 1960) before the Registrar. Claim of his date of birth to be in the year 1939 was based on Janam kundli, whereas vide letter dated 2.12.1994, petitioner responded to department to process for his retirement as per record available with them whatsoever. Department, after taking into account papers related to insurance of the petitioner in which he mentioned his date of birth to be in the year 1935, he was retired w.e.f. 31.3.1995.

Joint Registrar, vide order dated 28.6.2008, after having considered the evidence and submissions of the parties elaborately, decided the dispute accordingly and rejected the claim of the petitioner.

Vide impugned order dated 21.6.2011 passed by the tribunal in First Appeal No. 154/2008, observing that Janam kundli like Annexure-P-5 and certificate issued by Head Master on 30.11.2007 stating that according to school record, date of birth of the petitioner is 25.2.1939 are not sufficient proof on their face value and dismissed the appeal.

In present petition, impugned order has been challenged on the grounds that order of retirement is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law being violative of the fundamental rights ensured in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner was permitted by the department to work two years more, after the age of alleged superannuation is also indicative of the fact that department was also not sure regarding date of birth of the petitioner to be in the year 1935.

On perusal of service book, it revealed that its entries were made by the petitioner on 3.10.1988. Why the column No.4 pertains to date of birth was left vacant is best known to him only. It may be, at the most, a gross negligence on the part of the department as to why such an important lapse had been ignored for years together. But on the part of the petitioner, this omissions is not less than a mischief. Coupled with the fact, while department gave him an opportunity to submit proof of date of birth prior to passing an order of his retirement, petitioner conceded that the department may proceed as per the record available. While department has done so, petitioner came with a Janam kundli and certificate recently issued by Head Master, showing his date of birth in school record as 1939. On such conduct and documentary evidence, in our opinion, no reliance can be placed.

Courts below have rightly disapproved and discredited the claim of the petitioner in respect of his date of birth to be in the year 1939. In so far as, mention of date of birth in school record is concerned, law is clear that such original entries can be proved and can be believed by the evidence of author of the entries, not on the basis of a vague, unauthorized and unacceptable certificate issued in the year 2007. Position of evidential value of Janam kundli is also not at all better then aforesaid certificate.

In view of the given facts and circumstances of the case, no sanctity can be attached on both such documents submitted by the petitioner. Tribunal has considered all aspects of the matter in fair and proper manner. No interference, in our considered opinion, is called for.

Petition being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.