Prabhat Singh vs The H.P. State Electricity Board and others

Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge

The petitioner having initially worked in the respondent-Board as daily rated Beldar was later on regularised as such with effect from 20.9.1997. It appears that since the petitioner is illiterate, there was no age proof qua him so as to be produced to the employer at the time of his regularisation. In such circumstances, he was medically examined vide certificate dated 22.9.1997, Annexure A1, on the basis of which and per his own reckoning, his age at that time was estimated as 48 years. It being so, the petitioner was to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation being 60 years on or about 30.9.2009. It further appears that somewhere in the year 2005, the petitioner submitted application, Annexure A/3, which though appears to be dated, yet the date seems to have been intentionally obliterated, to the Chief Medical Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala for issuance of birth certificate claiming that he was born on 16.9.1950. Consequently, birth certificate, Annexure A/2, was issued on 6.9.2005 showing the date of birth as 16.9.1950. However, the relevant entry in respect of the person qua whom certificate, Annexure A/2, has been issued is in Urdu. English translation of birth certificate Annexure A/2 is Annexure A-2/T wherein the name of the person born as per certificate Annexure A2 is recorded as Rangeel Singh son of Beli Ram. However, the name of the petitioner is Prabhat Singh son of Beli Ram. As such, birth certificate, Annexure A/2, seems to be that of a younger sibling of the petitioner. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that he was born on 16.9.1950 stands falsified.

As per letter dated 3.9.2005, Annexure A/4, respondent No.3 had also written to the Chief Medical Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala for verification of the claim of the petitioner that he was born in September, 1950.

In the service book of the petitioner, an extract whereof has been brought on record on behalf of the respondents as Annexure RA-II, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 26.6.1946, on the basis of which he was retired from service on 30.6.2006. Though in certificate dated 22.9.1997, Annexure A1, actual date of birth of the petitioner does not find mention and instead it is stated that he was aged 48 years at that time, yet in an alternate copy of the said certificate brought on record on behalf of the petitioner as Annexure A/6, his date of birth is mentioned as 26.6.1946, in addition to his age in words as forty eight years as on 22.9.1997. According to the petitioner, the original certificate did not contain the date of birth of the petitioner as 26.6.1946 and this entry has been manipulated by the respondents. Similarly, in an alternate copy of the birth certificate dated 22.9.1997 brought on record on behalf of the respondents as Annexure RA-1, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 26.6.1946 in addition to his age in words as forty eight years as on 22.9.1997. In extract of the service book of the petitioner, Annexure RA-II, there is an entry to the effect "D.O.B. may be checked from the concerned record and correct it accordingly" which bears initials which cannot be deciphered with date line as 14/2/ (year not legible). Below this entry is another entry with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner which reads as "26.6.46 D.O.B. verified as per (not legible) certificate".

Vide letter dated 8.4.2006, Annexure A/5, respondent No.2 had intimated the petitioner that "the date of birth might have been incorporated in the service book as 26.6.1946 as per document produced by you at the time of initial appointment as Beldar (W.C.) and joined as such on 20.9.1997 (FN). Difference any should have been pointed out at the time of joining or within permissible time" and as such, the same cannot be changed at that belated stage.

In view of the above, when two dates of birth of the petitioner, that is, 48 years as on or about 22.9.1997 and 26.6.1946 are surfacing from the materials on record and the fact that the petitioner stood already retired from service as far back as 30.6.2006 and further that the controversy with regard to his age was raised by the petitioner after about 8 years from regularisation of his services and there being no definite proof with regard to his age, I am more than satisfied that the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence by this Court with regard to correction of his date of birth and for consequential benefits as has been held in two Division Bench judgments of this Court reported as Narinder Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and State of H.P. and ors. versus Shiam Lal Sharma, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1365. Moreover, the petitioner is also not entitled for any monetary relief for the period he has not actually worked after retirement on the principle of ''no work, no pay''. However, since prior to regularisation of his services as Beldar, the petitioner had served the respondent-Board as a daily rated Beldar, the service rendered by him as such shall be liable to be counted for the purpose of pension subject to the final outcome of CWP No. 180 of 2001, State of H.P. and others versus Sarb Dayal and the batch matters pending adjudication before a Division Bench of this Court.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any