In the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital Civil Writ Petition No. 3237 (S/S) of 2001. Tara Dutt Upadhyaya, s/o Late Sri Bhagirath Upadhyaya R/o House No. 107, Tallital, Nainital ….. (Since deceased) 1/1 Smt. Govindi Devi Upadhyaya W/o Late Tara Dutt Upadhyaya ½ Lalit Mohan Upadhyaya S/o Late Tara Dutt Upadhyaya 1/3 Mahesh Chandra Upadhyaya S/o Late Tara Dutt Upadhyaya ¼ Girish Chandra Upadhyaya S/o Late Tara Dutt Upadhyaya 1/5 Deepak Upadhyaya S/o Late Tara Dutt Upadhyaya, 1/6 Dinesh Chandra Upadhyaya S/o Late Tara Dutt Upadhyaya All resident of House No. 107, Tallital Nainital…… Petitioners. VS. 1. Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Terhi Kothi, Lucknow. 2. Divisional General Manager, U.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Haridwar, District Haridwar (Uttaranchal). 3. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Nainital ………Respondents. Sri Yogesh Pandey learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri A.N.Sharma learned counsel for the respondents. Date of judgment: March 23, 2004. Hon’ble Irshad Hussain, J. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner made a prayer that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased a. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay forthwith the entire outstanding dues to the petitioner including gratuity and pension; b. To pay interest on deliberate delayed payment of the dues at the rate of 18% per annum or as may be determined by this Court; c. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of Divisional General Manager dated 12-04- 1999 and consequent order of Regional Manager, Nainital dated 01-05-2001 The petitioner was appointed as a cleaner-conductor on a salary of Rs. 35.00 plus Rs. 20.00 as D.A. per month with effect from the forenoon of 16-6-1954. He was handed over retirement order dated 7.1.1994 while working as Senior Station Incharge, Kumaun Region of the respondent corporation while posted as Kathgodam. By this letter he was intimated that his date of birth as entered in the service record is 8.1.1935 which as a result of some interpolation had been changed to 15.1.1939 and as such he was due to be retired from the service on 31.1.1993. By the said order he was therefore retired forthwith from the service. These facts are not in dispute. The petitioner alleged that his date of birth is 15.1.1939 and therefore his date of retirement was 31.1.1993. Petitioner’s representation was rejected by the Chief General Manager of the respondent corporation whereupon he preferred a claim petition before the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow which was decided by the judgment and order dated 26-10-1998. By this judgment the impugned order of retirement dated 7.1.1994 and order dated 21.2.1995 rejecting the representation of the petitioner were set aside. The tribunal directed that the petitioner will be deemed in continuous service till 31.1.1997 taking his date of birth as 15.1.1939. It further directed that it will be open to the opposite parties to hold an inquiry about the correct date of birth after giving notice and opportunity of hearing and producing evidence on either side and then pass a reasoned and self speaking order according to law within the stipulated period. It was, therefore, also directed that the consequential benefits will abide by the result of the enquiry. In view of the above the Divisional General Manager held an enquiry and passed a speaking and reasoned order dated 12.4.1999 (Annexure-11) whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected and his date of birth was held to be 08-1-1935. A consequential order was therefore passed on 01-05-2001 (Annexure-12) by the Regional Manager, Nainital. Both these orders are impugned in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit the allegations of the petitioner have been vehemently denied and it had been reiterated that the date of birth of the 3 petitioner was 8.1.1935 and that the petitioner can not legally be allowed to challenge the correctness of the entry of the date of birth in the service records subsequently and that any interpolation made in the record can not legally be taken to benefit the illegal cause of the petitioner. The only question which arises for consideration in this petition is “whether the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 08-01-1935 in the service records and after some interpolation the same had been changed to 15-01-1939 keeping in view the date of birth got entered in the educational record of the petitioner?” The learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention to the Part-1 to Part-4 of the service book (Annexure RA-1) filed with the rejoinder affidavit and submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner had been entered as 15-01-1939 and the respondent authorities have acted illegally in not placing reliance on this important piece of evidence in the enquiry and that the impugned order dated 17.4.1999 can not legally be maintained. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents the service book had been prepared at a much later stage in the year 1964-65 whereas the petitioner had entered into service on 16-06-1954 therefore the interpolated date of birth in the said service book can not be taken to sustain the claim of the petitioner. On the first leaf, Annexure RA-1 the date mentioned is 27-7-1964 and further on the internal page no.11 of the said document the date of the preparation of the service book has been written as 17.7.1965 beneath the signature of the Officer of the respondents. Considering this aspect it can safely be stated that the service book was prepared subsequently and in the face of the facts of the case the initial service record of the petitioner need to be considered with regard to the question under consideration. Annexure- CA-3 is the application form submitted by the petitioner at the time of entering into service and in it the date of birth has clearly been mentioned as 8th January 1935 with an endorsement that the age of the petitioner then was 20 years. The petitioner as stated above joined his service on 16.06.1954 (Annexure CA-2) and it was according to the rules that the incumbent above the age of 18 years took up the job as such. If the date of birth of the petitioner was to be 15.1.1939 he could not have even attained the age of 16 years on 4 16-6-1954 and therefore a minor could not have been taken into the service by the respondent authority. This aspect of the matter run counter to the claim of the petitioner and it rather support the contention of the respondents that subsequently when the service book was prepared by interpolation the date of birth was written or changed as 15-1-1939 instead of 8-01-1935. The conclusion is also lent credence to by another piece of documentary evidence. It is the form of verification of the appointment of the petitioner and his character certificated as given by a known renowned person (CA-4). In this document also the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned is 8.1.1935. The respondent also filed service statement (Annexure CA-6) in which by interpolation date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 15.1.1939 and the interpolation is writ large on bare look of the said document. Another part of the service record (Annexure CA-7) however has entry of date of birth as 8-1-1935 which had not been interpolated and remained intact to show the correct state of affair. Endorsements on this document were made from time to time by the authorities of the respondents as and when the petitioner had been given increments as well as reverted as a consequence of some disciplinary action and legally this piece of evidence also can not be ignored in consideration of the respective contentions of the parties. Further in subsequent part of the service statement of the petitioner (Annexure CA-8) the date of birth mentioned as 8th January 1935 was struck of and by subsequent endorsement date of birth has been shown as 15.1.1935 without any endorsement of requirement to have the date of birth corrected in it. Therefore this document also militate against the claim of the petitioner. It is well settled that the date of birth of an employee as entered in the service record at the initial state has to be taken to be correct unless and until at the earliest opportunity the date of birth is sought to be changed by making a representation by the employee. As is evident from the record the petitioner has never made any representation for making change in the date of birth and rather the material on record amply suggest that the change in the date of birth was attempted by resorting to interpolation and cuttings surreptitiously. In regard to the above inference reference is necessary to the school leaving service etc filed by the petitioner in support of his 5 allegation. The petitioner filed second copy of school leaving certificate (Annexure -3) to show that his date of birth from very beginning had been entered in the school record as 15.1.1939. This second copy of the school leaving certificate had been obtained in the year 1994 after the petitioner had retired from the service and in the face of the facts of the case and the conduct of the petitioner the possibility can not be ruled out that the petitioner procured such a document by having a false entry made regarding his date of birth in the school register. Xerox copy of the Junior High School Examination ( Annexure-4) was signed by the Secretary on 20-12-1994 although the year of the examination has been mentioned in the hand writing numerical as 1952. This document has been produced as the Xerox copy of the first copy of the certificate and nothing has been shown as to how the original Junior High School certificated of year 1952 was got issued as late as in the year 1994 when the petitioner had already been retired from the service. Therefore no authenticity can also be attached to the date of birth mentioned in this document. So far as the copy of certificate of the High School Examination 1959 (Annexure-5) is concerned it is of the year 1959 when the petitioner was already in service and had appeared as a private candidate in the examination showing his date of birth as 15.11939. If said date of birth had been shown subsequent to an interpolation while the petitioner had already been in service no benefit can be extended to the petitioner on the basis of this certificate also. Reference was also made to seniority list dated 31.5.1990 (Annexure-8) wherein the date of birth of the petitioner in it has also been shown as 15.1.1939. This clearly appears to be result of the date of birth found in the service book after interpolation and therefore the same also can not be utilized in support of the claim of the petitioner because it had been found that as a result of interpolation the date of birth had been changed in the service book although it was correctly recorded initially in the service record as 8.1.1935. There is no other document worth mentioning as may have any decisive effect on the question under consideration. For the reasons mentioned above and the material on record I feel no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner was 8.1.1935 as had been entered initially in his service record 6 at the instance of the petitioner himself and that the same had been changed to 15.1.1939 as a result of interpolation. The question under consideration is therefore answered accordingly against the petitioner. The matter in this regard had been properly considered and enquired by the Divisional General Manager after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence and therefore his order dated 12.4.1999 (Annexure-11) impugned in this writ petition can not be said to be unjust and improper and the same can not legally be quashed. The other order dated 1.5.2001 (Annexure-12) also impugned in the writ petition was passed as a consequence of the said order and the same also can not be said to be illegal and unjust. This order also can not therefore be legally quashed. The petitioner therefore had rightly been retired from the service on the basis of his date of birth as 8-1-1935 and he is entitled to the consequential retrial benefits only. For the reasons aforesaid the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. (Irshad Hussain, J.) ISB