PRATUL KR MUKHERJEE Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA
LAWS(CAL)-1995-7-40
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on
July 07,1995
PRATUL KR.MUKHERJEE
Appellant
VERSUS
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED V. SUDHENDU KUMAR CHAKRABORTY AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]R.K.CHATTERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SMT.SUBHASHINI JYOTI MASIH V. PRABHARI CHIKITSA ADHI-KARY AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. BINAPAIRI DEI [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDRA NATH CHATTERJEE VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
JIWANKISHORE VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
SARJOO PRASAD VS. GENERAL MANAGER [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HARNAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER HOME DEPARTMENT VS. R KIRUBAKARAN [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY VS. M A WAHAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. TV VENUGOPALAN [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER VS. KHADEER KHADRI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA OTHERS VS. KANTILAL HEMATRAM PANDYA [REFERRED TO]
R S MEHROTRA VS. CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA CHANDRA ROUT VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
FATEH ALAM KHAN VS. TEA TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR VS. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
K PULLA REDDY VS. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS GOVT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2001-3-99] [REFERRED TO]Puspa Rani Chakrabarty VS. Allahabad Bank [LAWS(CAL)-2000-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
RADHANATH MANNA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2002-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Satya Brata Sinha, J. -
(1.)The ambit and scope of the right of the employee to correct his date of birth is the core question involved in this application.
(2.)The petitioner is an employee of the Respondent No. 1 being a Canteen Helper having been appointed on September 17, 1973. He at the relevant time filed a School Leaving Certificate showing his date of birth as November 26, 1937. His mother, however, on August 16, 1968 affirmed an Affidavit alleging that the date of the birth of the petitioner was November 24, 1942 and the uncle of the petitioner erroneously recorded his date of birth in the School Register as November 26, 1937.
(3.)November 26, 1937 was recorded as the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book. The petitioner appeared in the School Final Examination in the year 1975 as a private candidate wherein his date of birth was recorded as November 24, 1942. He filed the said Matriculation Certificate and the fact that he passed the Matriculation Examination was recorded in the Service Book. However, his date of birth was not altered. At that time the petitioner did not lodge any protest. The petitioner on July 25, 1992 made a representation for correction of his date of birth. He on April 3, 1994, allegedly due to inaction on the part of the respondents represented that his age be determined by a Medical Board. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board but the result whereof was allegedly not communicated to him. By a letter dated May 6, 1995 the respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner that it was not possible to change his date of birth in view of the Service Records.
;
(2.)The petitioner is an employee of the Respondent No. 1 being a Canteen Helper having been appointed on September 17, 1973. He at the relevant time filed a School Leaving Certificate showing his date of birth as November 26, 1937. His mother, however, on August 16, 1968 affirmed an Affidavit alleging that the date of the birth of the petitioner was November 24, 1942 and the uncle of the petitioner erroneously recorded his date of birth in the School Register as November 26, 1937.
(3.)November 26, 1937 was recorded as the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book. The petitioner appeared in the School Final Examination in the year 1975 as a private candidate wherein his date of birth was recorded as November 24, 1942. He filed the said Matriculation Certificate and the fact that he passed the Matriculation Examination was recorded in the Service Book. However, his date of birth was not altered. At that time the petitioner did not lodge any protest. The petitioner on July 25, 1992 made a representation for correction of his date of birth. He on April 3, 1994, allegedly due to inaction on the part of the respondents represented that his age be determined by a Medical Board. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board but the result whereof was allegedly not communicated to him. By a letter dated May 6, 1995 the respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner that it was not possible to change his date of birth in view of the Service Records.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.