C.S. Patel vs State of Chhattisgarh and others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—The petitioner seeks determination of his date of birth to the extent that the date of birth of the petitioner is 20-10-1939. However, treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 20-10-1937, the petitioner was prematurely retired on 31-10-1997. Further, a direction to the respondent authorities to settle the pension of the petitioner, accordingly. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner has completed his primary education, i.e., Class IV in the year 1951. The date of birth recorded in the primary school certificate dated 12-3-1959 was 22-10-1939, and as such, in the college leaving certificate issued by the Principal, Government College, the date of birth was shown as 22-10-1939 (Annexure P-2). The service book (Annexure P-3) also shows the date of birth of the petitioner, as 22-10-1939. Despite the above stated facts, the petitioner has been retired from his service w.e.f. 31-10-1997. Even in the seniority list of Lecturers as on 1-4-1995, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 22-10-1939.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that the entry made in the service book was initially 22-10-1937, thereafter, it appears that it has been manipulated, as nothing is clear from the service book.

Shri Dubey further submits that be that as it may, the case of age determination, on the basis of which, the petitioner was retired from service on 31-10-1997 may not be entertained at this stage after a period of 12 years, as the petition has been filed on 16-2-2009.

I have considered rival contentions of the parties and examined the documents. It is true that in some of the documents issued by the School and College, the date of birth has been shown as 22-10-1939, but the service record wherein it is not clear as to whether it was 39 or 37, as there appears to be manipulation. I have perused the original service book during the course of hearing.

Even otherwise, claim without explaining in ordinate delay, cannot be considered at this stage. Even otherwise, even if the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 20-10-1939, the petitioner would have retired on 31-10-1999. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the date of birth of the petitioner may be held as 20-10-1937 is rejected on the ground of inordinate, unexplained delay and laches. [See: Chandra Bhushan and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Regional), U.P. and Others, . Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, , State of M.P. and Others Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others, Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Another Vs. Jaswant Singh and Another, , State of Punjab and Another Vs. Balkaran Singh, Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Muralidhara Menon and Another, Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary and Others, , Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, and Smt. Shashibala Gandhrala Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, W.P.(S) No. 7222/2006].

This Court in Chain Singh Pendre Vs. State of C.G. and Others, , held as under:--

The law on the principle of waiver and acquiescence is well settled that, if the person sleeps over his rights and is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, he may not be entitled to the same relief as was granted to other vigilant persons.

In the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Satish Kumar Mittal and Another, , the Supreme Court observed that the applications for correction of date of birth cannot be entertained belatedly, almost at the end of the service on 31-10-1997 of the employee. In the case on hand, the petitioner had retired on 31-10-1997 and the writ petition is filed after a period of 12 years, for determination of date of birth. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief with regard to date of birth as pleaded and prayed in the petition.

With regard to the second prayer to settle the pension of the petitioner, if the same has not been done by the authorities, the authorities are directed to examine the case and if the petitioner is entitled to, settle the dispute with regard to retiral dues, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.