IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.531 of 2002 Judgment reserved on: 14.7.2008 Date of decision: 17th July, 2008. Jeet Ram ....Petitioner -Versus- State of H.P. and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta,Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. for respondents 1 to 3. Deepak Gupta, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 5.11.2001 passed in O.A. No.968 of 2000. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Jeet Ram was enrolled as a Constable in the Department of Police on 21.4.1961. In his service book his date of birth was recorded as 3.10.1939. According to the Punjab Police Rules ‘Fauji missal’ is prepared when any person is enrolled in the police service and in this ‘missal’ the age of the person enrolled is to be given. It is not disputed that the ‘Fauji 2 missal’ was prepared in the present case also on 19.6.1961 i.e. within two months of the petitioner’s recruitment. In the said ‘Fauji missal’ the age of the petitioner was shown to be 18 years 9 months and 28 days. This would mean that his date of birth was 23.6.1942. It is also not disputed that the date of birth of the petitioner as reflected in his school leaving certificate is also 23.6.1942. It appears that in 1966 the petitioner was working in the C.I.D. Department. During that period the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book was changed from 3.10.1939 to 23.6.1942. On the basis of the documents produced by the State itself it is apparent that this change in the service record was made by Sh.M.K. Suri, Deputy S.P. (since retired) who at the relevant time was working as A.S.I. (Establishment). The change has been attested by the then Superintendent of Police Sh.Tara Dutt Attri. From the documents it is also apparent that in all the seniority lists issued thereafter the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 23.6.1942. The age of retirement in the police force is 58 years and in case the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 3.10.1939 he would have retired at the end of the month of October, 1997. However, if the date of birth is taken as 23.6.1942 the retirement would have been on 30th June, 2000. It appears that in the year 1996 some inquiry was conducted by the Department to find out how the date of birth of the petitioner was changed from 3.10.1939 to 23.6.1942. 3 The inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur who held that the change in the date of birth in the service book has not been made under the orders of any competent officer. However, the Inquiry Officer has also clearly held that both in the ‘Fauji missal’ and in the original school leaving certificate the date of birth of the petitioner is 23.6.1942. Thereafter, the Additional Director General of Police considered the matter and vide his letter dated 4.6.1997, came to the conclusion that the Department will have to accept the date of birth of the petitioner to be 23.6.1942. Consequently, the petitioner was not retired in October, 1997 and continued to work thereafter. He was to retire in June, 2000. It appears that when his pension papers were sent to the office of the Accountant General, an objection was raised that his date of birth has been changed in violation of the Rules at the fag end of his career and therefore the matter was sent back. The Department thereafter issued a letter to the petitioner on 31.1.2000 retiring him from the sate date itself. The petitioner challenged this order by filing O.A. No.968 of 2000 which has been dismissed mainly on the ground that the change of the date of birth in the service book was not made by a competent Officer and the change is therefore unauthorized. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4 We have heard Sh.Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State. We, after going through the record have been unable to fathom how the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the change in the date of birth in the service book was made unauthorisedly. No material was placed on record either before the Tribunal or before us to show who was the relevant authority to order/incorporate the change in the date of birth in the year 1966. Reliance by the respondents-State is placed in the Financial Rules which came into operation much later. These Rules cannot have retrospective operation. As observed above the change was incorporated by the ASI (Establishment) and the same was attested by the Dy.Superintendent of Police. No material is placed before us to show that the Dy.Superintendent of Police was not competent to make such entry. Even otherwise we are of the opinion that this change having been made as far back as in the year 1966 and the petitioner having continued thereafter in service for more than 30 years, the State was estopped from taking any action to the contrary in the year 2000. As already observed above the Additional Director General of Police himself came to the conclusion on 4th June, 1997 that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 23.6.1942. This was done on the basis of the school leaving certificate and the ‘Fauji missal’. 5 Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that this was not one of those cases where the change in the date of birth was made at the fag end of the career. At the start of the career of the petitioner there were two different dates of birth one in the service book, one in the ‘Fauji missal’. These two entries were reconciled and the service book was corrected in the year 1966. After a long period of time when all records relating to the year 1966 have been destroyed it cannot be said that this change in the date of birth was made unauthorisedly. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal is set-aside and the O.A. filed by the petitioner is allowed. It is directed that the date of birth of the petitioner shall be treated as 23.6.1942 and the date of retirement shall be fixed accordingly. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge July 17, 2008. ( V.K. Ahuja ), PV Judge