Union of India (UOI) vs Kalyan Singh and Another

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster on 26.02.1964. His service record in the form of descriptive particulars was prepared in 1971. In that his date of birth was indicated. When, in terms thereof, his date of retirement was nearing, by a letter dated 23.08.2002 he was informed in regard thereto. On 17.09.2002 he stated in a representation that his date of birth has not been recorded correctly in his service record and accordingly, the same be rectified. By letter dated 18.10.2002 Respondent No. 1 was informed that his request is not being acceded. That resulted in filing of an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, where Respondent No. 1 contended that he was born on 21.11.1943 and accordingly, he should be permitted to work until he reaches the age of superannuation on the basis of the said date of birth. The Central Administrative Tribunal has accepted the said contention and while doing so has held that it was obligatory to intimate in the order dated 18.10.2002 as to why representation of the Respondent No. 1 contained in his letter dated 17.09.2002 is not being acceded. We think there was no compulsion to do so. The Tribunal has not cited any Rule under which Respondent No. 1 could make such a belated representation for altering his date of birth in his service book and accordingly, the representation so made by Respondent No. 1 was not worth even the waste paper box, far less obliging the authority concerned to give reasons in support of rejection thereof.

While Tribunal rejected the entry in the service book duly countersigned by Respondent No. 1, on the ground that ink used by the Respondent No. 1, while signing the same, is different from the ink used for recording the other entries made in service book, it also refused to take notice of the seniority list issued in 1990 and 1991 depicting the date of birth of the Respondent No. 1, as was recorded in his service book, only on the ground that the Petitioner herein has failed to produce documents to suggest service upon the Respondent No. 1, the seniority lists, thus, prepared. We are shocked and overwhelmed by the said conclusion of the Tribunal. Service of seniority list upon persons listed therein is normally done by displaying the same, unless Rules require, which have not been noted by the Tribunal. There cannot be any concept of personal service of seniority list to the persons listed therein. It is even more astounding that Respondent No. 1, who had been working since 26.02.1964 until the end of 2002, did not bother to know his seniority in the cadre in which he was working. It was unjust and inappropriate on the part of the Tribunal to accept the wrongful denial of knowledge on the part of Respondent No. 1, as regard the said seniority lists and the contents thereof.

In the matter of accepting the contention of the Respondent No. 1, in regard to his date of birth, the Tribunal relied upon Kutumb Register of Respondent No. 1 and felt that same is register of death and birth. The Tribunal did not even bother to enquire, who in law, is entitled to keep and maintain register of death and birth. The Kutumb Register relied upon was kept and maintained by the Panchayat. The Tribunal failed to make any enquiry as to whether, in law, Panchayat, at the relevant time, had any obligation to maintain any such register or not. The Tribunal relied upon medical report and inspection report prepared after the Respondent No. 1 had joined. Those reports make them clear that they were not pertaining to investigation of the date of birth of Respondent No. 1. How, therefore, recording of the date of birth of the Respondent No. 1 in those reports, could be relevant had not been explained by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also relied upon Life Insurance Policy taken out in the year 1984. The Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that any document surfacing after the entry of a public servant in service and recording of his date of birth in the service record, cannot be looked at all for the purpose of altering the recorded date of birth. We are of the view that every aspect of the matter dealt by the Tribunal is erroneous.

We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and set aside the judgment and order of the Tribunal.