UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS, THROUGH SECY GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Vs. MES 2287772 SHRI SUJIT KR DEY EX-FITTER GENERAL MACHANIC, SKILLED
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Union Of India And 3 Ors, Through Secy Govt Of India, Ministry Of Defence
Mes 2287772 Shri Sujit Kr Dey Ex-Fitter General Machanic, Skilled
Click here to view full judgement.
Ajit Singh, C.J. -
(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 20.6.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby it has allowed respondent's OA No.333/2012 with all consequential service benefits.
(2.) Admitted facts in short are these. Respondent was appointed on 14.8.1970 as Mazdoor under Garrison Engineer, Silchar of the Military Engineering Service. At that time, in the service book his date of birth was recorded as 12.8.1949. Later, in the year 1979, he produced High School Leaving Examination Certificate before the authorities, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 13.12.1950 and applied for correction of its entry in the service book. The Garrison Engineer also after examining the Certificate vide order dated 26.7.2004 corrected the date of birth of respondent as 13.12.1950 in the service book. From the corrected date of birth, respondent would have attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.12.2010. But, on an audit objection regarding alteration of date of birth in the service book, the petitioners vide order dated 18.3.2010 suddenly placed him under superannuation with immediate effect. Aggrieved, the respondent rushed to the Tribunal by filing OA No.333 of 2012 which has been allowed by the impugned order. The Tribunal has held that the date of birth in the service book of respondent was rightly altered as 13.12.1950 in place of 12.8.1949 and therefore, petitioners must allow him to retire from service by treating his date of birth as 13.12.1950 with all consequential service benefits. The Tribunal also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Harnam Singh, 1993 2 SCC 162, in allowing the Original Application of respondent.
(3.) It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is illegal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has defended the order of the Tribunal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.