PRADEEP KANT AND NARAYAN SHUKLA,JJ. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Amit Bose and Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned Counsel for the respondents. This special appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14th March, 2008, by means of which the claim of the appellant that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded in the service book because of which he was retired approximately four years before he could actually reach the ago of superannuation i.e. 58 years has been rejected.
(2.) THE claim has been rejected mainly on the ground that the appellant did not raise any objection against the entry of dale of birth recorded in the service book though it was reflected in the gradation list also, till the fag end of his career and therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. It is true that a Government servant who enters into service with open eyes and full knowledge that he is to retire at the age of superannuation as may be prescribed for such Government servant, cannot be allowed to adopt any means which would give him further lease of life in his service tenure. Even if, there is a bonafide mistake in recording the date of birth in the service book and the Government servant comes to know about that but if he or she does not take any action within the reasonable time then he may not be allowed to raise this issue at the fag end of the career, if he has failed to do so promptly. But if a date of birth has been recorded without any basis and material before the department or the appointing authority in the service book and in contradiction to the certificate supplied by the Government servant, that too without any association of the Government servant and without any request being made by him to record such a date the question would arise whether the Government servant is bound by the date of birth recorded in the service book or he would be allowed to get it corrected on the basis of relevant certificate which he had obtained prior to his entering into service and had also supplied the same to the department, while entering into service and failure on his part to move an application for correction immediately his claim rejected merely on the ground that such a prayer has been made at the fag end of the career when he was issued a notice for retirement.
(3.) THERE cannot be a law of rejection to be made applicable in all facts and circumstances of the case which has to be seen on its own facts. The conduct of the Government servant also plays a relevant role while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.;