Zile Singh vs Union of India

R.L. Anand, J.—Zile Singh, petitioner, has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and he has prayed for the issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him the pension and to give salary from the month of September, 1997 to 31.1.1998 and arrears of pension along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

The case set up by the petitioner is that the joined the Indian Army as a Sweeper on 24.4.1966 at San-grur. At the time of his entering into service he was issued an identify card, Annexure P-1, in which his date-of birth was recorded as 10.1.193 8. Thereafter, the petitioner was made to retire from service on 10.5.1991. He was relieved from service but later on when the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner was 10.1.1938, came into notice, the petitioner was recalled for joining duty for the remaining period of service. The petitioner again joined his duty on 5.6.1991 Again the petitioner was illegally retired on 28.11.1997 when the actual date of retirement of the petitioner was 31.1.1998. The grouse of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the salary from 28.11.1997 up to 31.1.1998 and moreover, his pension has not been rightly calculated nor it has been granted to him in spite of the fact that he sent telegram to the respondent-authority. Finally, he served a registered notice dated 7.2.1998. He received the reply dated 20.3.1998. A reminder was also issued by the petitioner but to no effect. Hence the present writ petition.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents and the main defence of the respondents is that the actual date of the birth of the petitioner is 18.2.1936 and after serving the department up to the age of 60 years, the petitioner was supposed to retire on 28.2.1996. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit.

4.1 have heard Shri Baljit Puri, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.

The controversy in this case is very short, which is about the actual date of birth of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has proved from the documentary evidence which I am inclined to believe that the date of the birth of the petitioner was 10.1.1938. The first document is in the shape of identity card which is being issued by the Government of India to an employee when he joins the service. It is clearly mentioned therein that the date of birth of the petitioner Shri Zile Singh is 10.1.1938. It is a mailer of common knowledge that when a person joins the service his date of birth is verified in the service book. No such entry has been produced on the record to rebut the document Annexure P-1.

The things do not rest here. Annexure P-10 is another document which has been issued by Shri M.S. Punia, Lt.Col. Station Headquarters Officer, Sangrur in which the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 10.1.1938 while that of Shri Kalu Ram has been shown as 18.2.1936 and the name of Shri Kalu Ram figures at Serial No. 17 while that of the petitioner finds at serial No. 18. It appears that on account of some bona fide mistake the date of Kalu Ram has been taken as the date of birth of the present petitioner.

Still, there is another damaging document for the respondents i.e. Annexure P-2. In para No. 4 of this document it has been written as follows :-

"It is for your information that the above individual as per present records available in this HQ is due for his retirement on attaining his superannuation age on 31 Jan. 1998. The retirement benefits of the above individual will be held for warn of above letter''s copy. The individual is sent to report to your HQ on 22 Sep 97 for obtaining copy by hand".

It has not been shown that the above letter which has issued under the signatures of Ltd. Col. B.S. Dhanoya, was factually incorrect or that the petitioner manipulated this document in connivance with the authorities/officers of the respondents.

Thus, it stands established that the date of birth of the petitioner was 10.1.1938. He was supposed to remain in service up to the age of 60 years. Thus, his date of superannuation comes to 31.1.1998 i.e. the last date of the month of January. The petitioner is entitled to the salary upto 31.1.1998 because his service career has been cut short due to the fault of the respondents and the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for the lapse, if any, committed on behalf of the respondents.

Resultantiy, this writ petition is allowed and directions are given to the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner up to 31.1.1998 after deducting the salary which has already been paid to the petitioner and pensionary benefits be also released to the petitioner within two months from the receipt of the copy of this order treating the petitioner in service up to 31.1.1998. In case, the directions of this Court are not complied with by the respondents within two months, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12%. There shall be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.