HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Gh Mohd Bhat
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) PETITIONER is serving in the Police Department and a change is said to have been effected in his date of birth by the respondents. It is averred
by the petitioner that his date of birth was 10.7.1989 BK and he was due
to be retired on the basis of that date of birth after attaining the age
of superannuation of 55 years. It is further averred that in his
character roll petitioners date of birth was recorded as 10.7.1989 BK
when he joined the service, but somewhere in 1957 his character roll was
gutted in fire. A duplicate character roll is said to have been
constructed and prepared in which petitioners date of birth was recorded
incorrectly which was different than the one which was recorded in the
original character roll. In 1981 January, petitioner was asked by the S.
P. Budgam to submit his matriculation certificate showing his date of
birth. Petitioner is said to have obtained school leaving certificate
from S P.M.L Higher Secondary Institute, from the Principal of the said
Institute wherein his date of birth was shown as 10.7.1989 BK. By virtue
of annexure -I to the writ petition, the SP is said to have acknowledged
the receipt of the said certificate as also copy of the school leaving
certificate showing the petitioners date of birth as 10.7.1989 BK copy of
the said certificate is annexure -II to the writ petition. By virtue of
Annexure -III the SP Budgam is said to have forwarded the school leaving
certificate of the petitioner showing his date of birth to the Dy.
Inspector General of Police, CID (Crime and Railways J&K Srinagar) for
verification. This communication was addressed to the said DIG on 3
10.1981. The Staff Officer DIG, Crime and Railways is said to have in terms of Annexure -IV conveyed to the respondent No. 2 that perusal of the
character roll of the petitioner, which is duplicate one reveals that his
date of birth was recorded as 2.4.1986 BK where as the certificate
produced by the petitioner indicates his date of birth as 10.7.1989 BK To
verify the petitioners date of birth and to verify the correctness of the
said certificate Shri J.L. Pandita, SP Computer is said to have been
asked to do the needful. Necessary verification is said to have been done
by Inspector T. N Tickoo No. 249/NG -O who is said to have verified the
authenticity of the school leaving certificate and found it genuine. It
was further remarked that since there exists some cuttings and initials
to the date of birth, the Dy. S. P. crime branch was asked to verify the
cuttings and initials of the officer. The Principal concerned who had
issued the Date of birth certificate was contacted. He admitted the
correctness of the certificate. The cuttings on the certificate also were
said to have been initialled by the then principal Peerzada Mohd Yousuf.
A request was made to the respondent No. 2 to issue necessary
sanction/orders effecting correction to the date of birth of the
petitioner in the character roll. The character roll as also the school
leaving certificate was sent to the respondent No. 2 for his perusal and
further action. This communication is dated 8.5.1984. After the receipt
of the letter, the respondent No. 2 is said to have informed the DIG
Police Crime and Railways that the date of birth already recorded in the
character roll cannot be changed at this stage.
(2.) ON the basis of the aforesaid facts the petitioner urges that communication contained in Annexure V of the respondent No. 2 is illegal
and void as it effects the petitioners service rights. Petitioners date
of birth could not be changed and on enquiry which was conducted by the
department it was found that the petitioners date of birth was 10.7.1989.
There fore respondent No. 2 could not have refused to change the
incorrect date of birth and order that the incorrect date of birth be
maintained which was written in the duplicate character roll, the
original having been lost. The duplicate character roll is said to be
incorrect in so far as the date of the petitioner is concerned. The State
Govts power to record correct date of birth of any of its employees is
concerned, but it is submitted that recording of date of birth must be
based on some evidence. The genuineness of the date of birth certificate
produced by the petitioner contained in Annexure -II is said to have been
scrutinized and certified to be correct, therefore respondent No. 2 could
not on the basis of the report of verification of his own department
fasten incorrect date of birth on the petitioner. The arbitrary action of
the respondent No. 2 whereby he is to be retired on the basis of date of
birth of 2.4.1986 is illegal and would amount to premature retirement of
the petitioner in violation of his service rights. Accordingly Annexure -V
is requested to be quashed.
(3.) MR . A. R. Nanda, IPS, Additional Inspector General of Police, J&K, Srinagar has filed reply on behalf of the respondents. It is
conceded by him that in 1957 service record of various officers including
that of the petitioner was gutted and present service character roll of
the petitioner is a duplicate one. The date of birth recorded in original
character roll is not available. In the duplicate character roll the
petitioners age is shown as 24 years. According to the Medical from
attached to it which has been calculate and put at 2.4 1986 BK
corresponding to 14.7.1929. It is also admitted that SP Budgam had asked
the petitioner to submit the original Matriculation certificate, and
subsequently he forwarded his service record alongwith the date of birth
certificate so produced by the petitioner the DIG Crime and Railways for
verification Averments contained in para 6 of the writ petition to the
effect that authenticity and genuineness of the certificate was verified
by the authorities and a communication was addressed to the DIG on
8.5.1984, stating therein that the date of birth certificate of the petitioner, copy whereof is annexure -II, was correct and his date of
birth be fixed according to that certificate are admitted. However, it is
denied that respondent No. has acted arbitrarily. Respondents have also
denied that petitioners rights have been affected. School leaving
certificate contained in Annexure -II is said to indicate the date of
birth of the petitioner as 10.7.1989 BK. It is averred that age of the
petitioner at the time of this enrolment had been assessed by the Medical
Officer. It is further contended that in terms of Govt. circular date of
birth as entered in the character roll is not liable to be altered. At
the same time genuineness and correctness of Annexure -II which is date of
birth certificate is admitted in unequivocal terms by the respondents.
Retirement age is said to have been determined on the basis of assessment
made by the medical officer. Retirement of the petitioner on the basis of
date of birth as 2.4.1986 BK is said to be justified.
From the reading of the pleadings i.e. the writ petition and the reply affidavit, the few facts which are admitted in this case are as
i. That original character roll of the petitioner was gutted in 1957 in an accidental fire;
ii. Thereafter duplicate character roll was constructed by the department;
iii. Date of birth of the petitioner was recorded not on the basis of any evidence but on the basis of some assessment of his age said to have made by some Medical Officer at the time of his entry in service thought all entries regarding his 1st entry in the recorded in the character roll is said to have been destroyed by fire.
iv. Superintendent Police Budgams communication to the Principal S.P.M.L Higher Secondary School contained in Annexure -I and thereafter issuance of Date of birth certificate by the Principal to the petitioner contained in Annexure -II is admitted.
v. Perusal of Annexure -II which is school leaving certificate issued by the Principal, M.L. Higher Secondary School, genuineness and correctness whereof is found correct reveals that the petitioners date of birth as 10.7.1889 BK and the said date of birth of the petitioner is not said to be incorrect;
vi. The recommendation on the basis of verification report is forwarded to the respondent No, 2 by the DIG Crime and Railways and request is made to affect the necessary correction in the petitioners date of birth, which impliedly would mean that the date of worth of the petitioner recorded in the character roll was not found correct.
On the basis of aforesaid facts, the question which falls for
determination of this court is as to whether Annexure -V can be said to be
valid and as to whether the petitioner is liable to be retired on the
basis of his date of birth entered in the duplicate character roll as
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.