Sukhamoy Bhattacharjee vs State of Tripura and Others

M.L. Singhal, J.—Heard Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. P. Dutta, learned Counsel for the State Respondents.

The Petitioner Sri Sukhamoy Bhattacharjee joined the Police Department, Government of Tripura as a constable on 15.7.52. Initially in the service book, the Petitioner''s date of birth was recorded as 1.6.33 subsequently on the basis of school final examination passed by the Petitioner the date of birth was changed to 1.5.39. In the graduation list published in 1982 (Annexure-2) the Petitioner''s date of birth was recorded as 1.5.39 as shown in the School Final Certificate. In the provisional gradation list published in 1988, again the date of birth of the Petitioner was shown as 1.6.33. The Petitioner made representation to the department which was rejected treating 1.6.33 as Petitioner''s date of birth. The Petitioner was retired from service in the year 1991.

On 15.7.52 when the Petitioner joined the service, if the Petitioner''s date of birth is taken as 1.5.39, the Petitioner was aged 13 years only at that time. A specific query has been made from the learned Counsel for the parties about the recruitment age existing in the year 1952. But the learned Counsel for the parties could not point out any such service rules or Government notification. The fact remains that the Petitioner joined the service according to him at the age of 13 years only.

The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that upto the year 1982 in the gradation list, the Petitioner''s date of birth has been shown as 1.5.39. It is only in the year 1988 when the provisional gradation list was published, the Petitioner''s date of birth was shown as 1.6.33. The service book of the Petitioner produced during the course of hearing of the case shows that at the time of entry in the service on 15.7.52, the Petitioner gave out his date of birth as 1.6.33. The thumb impression and signature of the Petitioner also appear below the date of birth. It is on the basis of School Final Examination certificate which the Petitioner has passed during the course of service, the date of birth has been shown as 1.5.39 the departmental proceedings were also initiated against the Petitioner for making false representation as to the date of birth. Though in the departmental proceedings, the Petitioner has been exonerated of the charges, the conclusive finding of the Inquiring officer is that the correct date of birth is 1.6.33 and not 1.5.39. In paragraph 3 of the petition, the Petitioner has contended that at the time of entry in the service, the Petitioner did not submit any document/certificate in support of his date of birth and as such no date of birth was recorded in his Service book. The said allegation is palpably false as at the time of entry of the Petitioner in the service, the date of birth of the Petitioner has been shown as 1.6.33. The fact appears to be that the Petitioner taking advantage of the date of birth as shown in the School Final examination certificate tried to get benefit hereof, unaware of a question mark in the case, if the date of birth is accepted as 1.5.39, how he could join the service especially in the Police department as a minor at that time aged about 13 years only. Had it been so, the Petitioner could not have passed the physical fitness examination and could not have been appointed to the service.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon two decisions of This Court W.P. (C) No. 18 of 1999 Shri Haripada Chakraborty v. The State of Tripura and Ors. and Civil Rule No. 232 of 1981 Shri Radha Mohan Sinha v. The State of Tripura and Ors. The learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon a decision of This Court. W.A. No. 52 of 1995 Shri Kumud Chandra v. The State of Tripura and Ors. The decisions relied upon by the Petitioner do not help the Petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the result, the Respondents rightly retired the Petitioner treating 1.6.33 as the Petitioner''s date of birth. Consequently, the writ petition has no force and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.