IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.11539 of 2008 Date of decision : June 2, 2011 Preet Kaur …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner filed an Original Application, before erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to treat her date of birth as 13.4.1955, instead of 14.2.1945, and to accord her all consequential benefits, flowing on account of the aforesaid change in the date of birth. On the abolition of the Tribunal, matter has come to this Court and it has been registered as CWP(T) at No.11539 of 2008, in the relevant Register. 2. Case of the petitioner is that she was engaged as a Labourer, on daily-wage basis, by respondent No.4, i.e. General Industries Corporation Ltd., in the year 1982. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… When working as daily-waged labourer, she was required to submit some form, regarding Employees’ Family Pension Scheme. In that form, her date of birth was recorded as 14.2.1945. Services of the petitioner were regularized on 2.1.1998 and she was appointed, on regular basis, as Class-IV employee. Appointment letter was issued, which is Annexure A-1. The appointment letter, vide Condition No.8, required the petitioner to intimate her date of birth and to submit certificate, in support of her claim regarding date of birth. She submitted birth certificate Annexure A-2, issued by the concerned Panchayat, School Leaving Certificate Annexure A-3, issued by the teacher of the Primary School the petitioner had attended and Annexure A-4 certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, of the area, in which the petitioner was born. In all these documents, her date of birth was written as 13.4.1955. Thereafter, Service Book of the petitioner was prepared. Copy of the first page of that Service Book, in which the particulars of the petitioner are recorded, is Annexure R-IV. In Annexure R-IV, her date of birth was written as 14.2.1945. This Service Book was prepared, after the petitioner was appointed on regular basis. Date of preparation of the Service Book, as mentioned in Annexure R-IV, is 27.1.1998. …3… 3. Soon after preparation of the Service Book, petitioner made a representation that her date of birth had not been correctly recorded in the Service Book. Her representation was rejected vide order dated 11.9.1998, Annexure R-II. Petitioner’s plea is that she had never been informed about the rejection of her representation. 4. In January, 2003 services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of Director, Health and Family Welfare, on secondment basis, because she had been declared surplus on the establishment of respondent No.4. 5. On 9.12.2003, she made another representation, copy Annexure A-7, to respondent No.4 that her date of birth had wrongly been shown in the Service Book that had been sent to the Health & Family Welfare Department. Her representation was rejected, vide communication dated 7.1.2004, Annexure A-8, on the ground that earlier also she had made similar representation, which stood rejected vide Annexure R-II. Petitioner then filed Original Application in the year 2004, before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of that application, she was retired, w.e.f. 28.2.2005, on the assumption that her date of birth was 14.2.1945. 6. Respondent No.4, in his reply, has alleged that the petitioner had herself disclosed her date of birth to be …4… 14.2.1945, at the time when she was enrolled for Employees’ Family Pension Scheme. It is also stated that in the Service Book her date of birth was recorded as 14.2.1945, to her knowledge and she signed the first page of that Service Book, on which the date of birth is also recorded. Respondents No.1 to 3 also took the similar plea, but they being not in the know of the facts of the case, their reply is of little consequence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Petitioner submitted documents, in the form of birth certificate and School Leaving certificate and also a certificate of the Panchayat, Annexures A-2, A-3 and A-4, on being asked to produce the same, after she was appointed on regular basis, vide Annexure A-1. Her Service Book was prepared only after she was appointed on regular basis. Now, when the petitioner had been required to intimate her date of birth and to submit proof, in support of her claim of date of birth, after regular appointment, and her Service Book was also prepared, for the first time, only after such regular appointment, respondent No.4 ought not to have recorded a date different from the date shown in documents Annexures A-2, A-3 and A-4, in the Service Book, copy Annexure R-IV, without first affording an opportunity to the petitioner to …5… explain that the date of birth intimated by her earlier, at the time of subscribing to the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, was different. 9. There is nothing on the record, suggesting that earlier representation of the petitioner, which she made soon after the preparation of Service Book was rejected to her knowledge, that is to say that the order of rejection was intimated to her. If the order of rejection of her representation had not been communicated to her, the second representation, which she made in December, 2003 could not have been rejected, on the ground that the earlier representation stood rejected vide Annexure R-II. Petitioner made representation, within one year of her regular appointment and also soon after the preparation of her Service Book, copy Annexure R-IV. So, her representation was required to be decided, on merits, that is to say after verification of the genuineness of documents Annexures A-2, A-3 and A-4, submitted by her, in support of her claim that her date of birth was 13.4.1955. 10. In view of the above discussion, writ petition is allowed, orders, rejecting the representations of the petitioner, regarding change in date of birth, are quashed, and respondent No.4 is directed to decide the representations of the petitioner, on merits, ignoring the …6… fact that in the papers, pertaining to Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, her date of birth is recorded as 14.2.1945. He shall decide the representations, on the basis of documents Annexure A-2, A-3 and A-4, of course, after satisfying himself about their genuineness. In case the aforesaid documents are found genuine, the representations shall be decided in favour of the petitioner and her date of birth shall be recorded as 13.4.1955, in her Service Book, copy Annexure R-IV and in that situation she will be entitled to all service benefits, including increments, pension, gratuity, etc. However, she having not worked from 1.3.2005 to this date, she will not be entitled to salary from 1.3.2005 to the date of this judgment, but shall be paid compensation, to be worked out at the rate of 50 per cent of the salary, which would have been payable to her had she not been retired, w.e.f. 28.2.2005. Her representations shall be decided, within three months from the date of this judgment and in case it is found that documents Annexure A-2, A-3 and A-4 are genuine and consequently her date of birth is 13.4.1955, she shall be paid full salary from the date of this judgment till the date she attains the age of superannuation, on the basis of her date of birth as 13.4.1955. Writ petition stands disposed of. June 2, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J