Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Prabhulal Mavjibhai Parmar

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. Hriday C Buch, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Shanu Pathan, learned Counsel for the Respondent. This petition has been filed challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, by which the claim filed by the Respondent for correction of his date of birth has been allowed by the Tribunal in OA No. 203 of 2008 decided on 17.6.2009. The Respondent was appointed as Pipe Fitter in Military Engineering Services on 20.4.1970. At the time of his appointment the Respondent did not produce the School Leaving Certificate. Therefore, he was medically examined on 25.5.1970 by Civil Surgeon, Kachchh and after medical examination, it was found that the Respondent was aged 22 years and his date of birth was recorded as 28.4.1948 in his service book. In the documents prepared by the Accounts Department at the time of joining the service, the date of birth mentioned was 28.4.1948 which has also been signed by Mr. P.M. Parmar, the Respondent.

We have directed the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to produce the service book as well as the entire service record of the Respondent which were examined by us along with the learned Counsel for the Respondent Ms. Shanu Pathan.

It appears that the Respondent raised a dispute about his date of birth on the basis of his School Leaving Certificate. From the perusal of the School Leaving Certificate and the records, we are of the opinion that this certificate was not there at the time when the Respondent was appointed and the same has been inserted in the record because all the other documents are in dilapidated condition whereas the School Leaving Certificate wherein the date of birth of the Respondent mentioned as 8.12.1951 is in a perfectly good condition. Further from the service book we find that the entire entries made in the service book at the time of the appointment of the Respondent by the accounts department mentioned the date of birth of the Respondent as 28.4.1948 whereas the original date of birth mentioned as 28.4.1948 had been scored off and in fresh handwriting it has been mentioned as 8.12.1951 and there is no signature of any authority who has changed the date of birth. Therefore, it appears that somebody has made an interpolation in the service book of the Respondent to give undue benefit by changing the date of birth of the Respondent. We find that all the documents at the time of the appointment of the Respondent mentioned his date of birth as 28.4.1948.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that forgery has been committed in the service record to change the date of birth of the Respondent from 28.4.1948 to 8.12.1951.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has urged that at the time of appointment it has been mentioned on record that the Respondent had passed sixth standard and this could only be mentioned on the basis of School Leaving Certificate. She has further urged that the medical examination by the Civil Surgeon was only with regard to physical condition of the Respondent and not for ascertaining the age of the Respondent. She lastly urged that in the seniority list, date of birth of the Respondent has been mentioned as per School Leaving Certificate as 8.12.1951.

We have examined the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent and have tried to co-relate them with the original record which has been produced before us. Since we have already held that forgery has been committed in the service record to give benefit to the Respondent by changing his date of birth though the date of birth at the time of entering into the service and all the documents showed the date of birth of the Respondent as 28.4.1948. Therefore, the arguments raised by the leaned counsel for the Respondent has no merits as due to forgery the date of birth was wrongly recorded in the seniority list as 8.12.1951. As held earlier, the School Leaving Certificate was not submitted at the time of appointment but it has been inserted subsequently as from the condition of the certificate in the records it appears that it is newly inserted document whereas all other documents in the service records are in dilapidated condition and numbered also. Somebody has put in number ''3'' to this forged document whereas number ''3'' was the medical certificate of examination for employment in the public service issued by the Civil Surgeon.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the date of birth of the Respondent should not be corrected on the basis of forgery committed in the service record. The Apex Court in catena of decisions held that correction in date of birth at the fag end of service is not permissible. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi, and in State of U.P. and Another Vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya,

For the aforesaid reasons, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.6.2009 passed in O.A. No. 203 of 2008 is set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs.