m THE HONfBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIMgPUR(cc)r / w.?0N°o c uggn% ¢ 200g- ;Vidya Vilaa Shrivastava " aged 52 yeara s/c Shri Khem 1a1 shrivaatau Retired Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari. Tuméibod. Distt. Baa‘nandgaon. Versus Petitioner / Raspondm @u} state come: cnbatusgarh mblic Health 8< Family weltare Dgpartment 1/ L?§"\;@v §a K/i / RAIPUR. Threugh - Th; Secretag‘y D.K.s./ Bhavgn . .x y Supdtwcum-Dlstt. Ayurveda Adhikari Rajnandgaon. writ petition under Article 226/227 oi the constitution of india. , ( : x.__‘4 Xl—HC—78 . ....w?z’6g mmzmm'm ‘ $12003 mammafm) ‘- mmm mm mm#wm ’ aswmei 4—5-2005 Mr. Ajay Shrivasmva, counsel for 'H'xe pefi'rioner'. Mr:5andeep Dubzy, Govt Advoca‘re for The S’m‘l’e/responden‘rs. Heard boTh The c'ounsel., The pe‘ri‘rioner, who is a refired Ayurved Chiki‘wa Adhikari, Tumdibod, Disfr‘icf: Rajnandgacn, has preferred fhis wrifpe‘l‘h‘ion under Ar‘ricie 226/227 cf fhe Cans? fufion of India' ques‘fioning fhe legalify, 1e order dafed 22-7—2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by she Su‘perinfe den’r—cu‘m-Disfric‘r AyurVed Adhikari, Rajnandgaon, whereby if was in armed fha‘r fhe Hedlfh & Family'Welfare Depam‘mem‘ of The 'Governme 1’ vide ifs order dm‘ed 10-5-2002 has changed fhe da‘re of refiremen of “the pe‘rifioner from 31-5—2001 To 31- 5—2000, and laiso The order d Ted 10-5—2002 (Annexure P-2) whereby fhe Under Secretary, HeaHh & Fami!y 'Welfare Deparfmen‘r, Govt of Chha‘f‘risgarh, ordered fha‘r Th dafe of reTiremen‘r of the pe'm'ioner be Trea'u‘ed as 31-5—2000 ins'read f 31-5-2001. Brief facTs ieading To ling of fhis wrif peTi‘Hon are fhaT fhe pe‘ri'i'i'oner enfered in‘ro éovern en’r service in +he Ayurved Deparfmenf, and uh‘ima‘l’eiy he refired from The posf of Ayurved Chikifsa Adhikari on 31-5-2001 considering his d Te of birTh as 25-5—1941. AfTer The reTiremenT, The 5TaTe Govern enT was informed ThaT The acTuaI daTe of birTh of The peTiTioner is 194 , same has been changed and inTerpolaTed proprie'ry and correcTness of T i X!—HC~78 mmm$ m $25. wzomg masrm (cmw) . x amazmmai -.1 warmmanéar mwmff§$m asWwéw To i941, and based on fha‘r ‘r changed 1'0 25-54940 in phce ( The case of fhe peTi‘Ho ‘Z fianmam . , we da‘re of bir’rh, of fhe pefi‘rioner was yf 25-5-1941. is Tha’r withouf giving him oppor‘i’unh‘y or wi‘fhouf issuing show cau no‘tice f0 him ’fo prove and produce documen‘rs in order +0 prove his dafe of biri'h as 25-5-1941, same has been changed, ‘fherefore +he a Tion of The responden'is is arbi'rmry. In fhe Mairicula‘rion cer‘rifica're of The pe‘fifioner’, his da‘re of birfh is wriffen as 25-5-1941 and as a| o in fhe school leaving cer‘rifica‘fe issued in favour of ‘ihe pe‘fi‘rioner, da‘le of birTh of The'pe‘rifioner is mentioned as 25-5-1941. ‘ On accounf of The said change, recovery has also been effec'l‘ed from The pe‘ri‘rione 's gralui'l’y, for 'fhe amoun‘l which he received on accounf of serving on one year more, considering his dafe of birfh as 1941. Therefore, has been prayed fhal' fhese impugned orders (Annexures P~1 & P be quashed and The respondenTs be direcTed To reTurn The amou T which has been recovered from The peTiTioner and inTeresT may als be allowed To be paid To him. ReTurn has been filed on behalf of The STaTe/responden‘Ts in which iT hasgb‘een menTioned ThaT The daTe of birTh of The peTiTioner was 25—5— 1940, The same was manipulaTe To 25-5—1941, and The said correcTion is noT cerTified hy any auThori ed officer, which is evidenT from The phoTosTaT copy of The servi e 'book (Annexure R-i), which, clearly indicaTes The manipulaTion of daTe of birTh of The peTiTioner and iT r n s i - ) @ XI-HC-78 WW; mmgg WW m‘a‘w (ww) m$Tzmaqizsw mmmisnésT ‘3; ,mfmaqm&wwv $Wm31 amoun‘rs +0 misconducf ,under fhe Chha‘f‘nsgar'h CIVII Services (Classificm‘ion, Con’rrol & Appetxl) Rules, 1966. The wri‘r pefi‘rion of fhe peTi‘l’ioner deserves fobedismissed on *he ground of delay also. The ddfe of bir‘fh of The peTi‘rioner' was manipula’red by ‘rhe peTiTioner‘ and was correcfed as 255-1941 in words as well as in figures, and Thaf has no‘l been am‘horized by any co ’npefen‘l’ officer. The .S‘ra‘re Governmenf has issued circular from fime To fime regarding correc‘iion of fhe dafe of birfh Therefore fhe writ mon be dismissed I have perused The rec rd .L‘r is admi'H'ed posrhon 1'ha1' m The firs’r instance, The pe'rmoner w s allowed “to commue m servme fill 31-5- 2001 considering his dafe of irTh as 25-5—1941, offer his refiremen‘r, ac‘rion was ini‘ha‘recl in fhe mon h o December and vide order dafed 10- 5—2002 Le. after anyear, f e da‘re of birfh of ’rhe pei‘ifioner was changed from 25-5-1941 1'0 -5-1940.” In fhe refurn‘filed by The STaTe/Pespondenfs, fhe defe 'i’aken by i‘hem is ihaT frhe said dai’e was manipulm‘ed by "rhe peTi‘rioner s ‘rhe same has no‘r been cer‘rified by any au‘rhorized officer, buT no’rhin has been broughi on record To show Tha‘r why the pe‘ri'rioner was allow d To confinue in service fill 31—5-2001 considering his da're of birfh s 25-5-1941. As per fhe Pension Rules, l i‘ ‘l'he pension case of an employe should be inifiaied ‘iwo years before his reiiremenT lookingifo fhe whole service record, Then why before 2001 i.e. in 1999 or 2000 This manip laTion was noT deTecTed. Even oTherwise, p T 5 n ® XliHC—78 U4€ 5?28 mamw aawaz W . nas () Emmwm ~ . mmmm t sx ‘ - #w g, $31$maer no'rhing has een brougf on rerd Tho? whaf as The asfnr rhing f0 The conclusion 'u‘haf The de of bir‘fh of 'rhe p‘i‘riner has been manipula‘re. No enquir was cnducfed as To whefher- in ad- he ate of bir'rh of fh pefiTione ws manipula‘fed, and i s,‘ when if was manipub‘fe, paicularl wh he service recod reins n The possession f 1’e Sfa’re Goverment a in This connetin, no officer was examined by cndcng quiry fo prove fha‘t e his daf of bir‘rh as changed. Ther is n0hi on ecord whic o h how The peTifioner wa able To reach, To he record and change his aT f birTh. Thefore, wiThouT condcfing n enquir The da''e o birf o The peTifiner was changed iThou giving hi opporuniy, hole cTion of The STaTe éovernmenT is pjudicial To Te onernd T same could noT have een don on Th back o Th peTiTioner. I a forTified in my viw by Th judgmnT o e Apx CourT in e aTTr of Srjo ?r'asad v. The &eneral Managr and another repored in A 981 SC 1481, in whh The Apex Cou held haT “file dae f ih Wifhf i no ce and w/fhou iving oppo unify fa Me appe/lan cannof b offered f0 The o’I'sac/Vaage and’ ejudice of a empio because r; adm/hlsfrafive order which li/yes civil consequences m'r mode co h onm J M20033 fné Q ‘" b h co w bis‘ eac ar ero‘ d y o f ? d e r a f .o d rTy, en ‘r r ma i o h n nd co oufi en whn f e w e "ng r h shws Taf s T de o re u a y i f h f o wT m TT The w a re h peTiTi/ia he b e e f e m e e e f Th e Th me ao o T IR 1 ic iT T f o brf ou fi f g r f f e n‘r pr n yee o mo us be in nformify with J‘e ru/esof n/l osfice which of ifs lowesf m/hibium requires no fice and oppor funii‘y 'fo fhe person affecfeo’ fhereby‘. ’ XIAHC-78 $26 1112003 W mm$ mam (WW).- > -5 " Aparf fromiihaf The peTi' copy of fhe 52cor€dary Schoql ( PR-s) which was obtained 5y me hisv r'e'riremen‘l’.‘ Perusal of Ahm ds well aé in figures 'rh'e dqfe of 5—1941. , The school_ leaving placed on record which was x y school RaJnanclgaon has also been ' "'iij‘::’ga1’mfg’ama : wwmawm €5Wané§1 " 'ioner has’placed on record The duplicaTe fgrfifica‘l'e Examina‘rion, 1958 (Annexure paifioner onIZ9”‘ July, 1998, he‘ before axure PR-3 clearly reveals ThaT in words bir‘lh of lhe peli‘lionér is wri'r'ren as 25; Mul‘ripurpose Higher .Secondar :erl’ifica'fe issued By .The Governmem sued on 21-4 1981 and In This school leaving cer‘rifica'l’e also in figur s as well as in words, The doTe of bir‘lh of fhe pefi‘rioner has been sho of’i‘hese documem‘s as well as was changed delrimen‘lal 1'0 nducfing any enquiry, 'l‘he whole acTion of fhe responden‘rs suffers from vice of arbifrariness and also fhe 1 principles of na’ruml Jus‘rice. 'ln ihe resul‘l', The pefi‘ rion of The pefii’ioner deserves To be allowed and The. same is allowec. and 'lh’e‘ consequenfial order pefiiioner'is enfifled f0 all bene as a consequence of issuance of n as 25—5-1941. Therefore, in presence iha'l'i'he da‘re'of bir‘lh of 'l'he pefi‘i’ioner oppor‘runi‘ly, fha‘r Too wi'rhouf co ihe pe‘rifioner wi‘l‘houf giving him any The impugned orders. Parfies are en'rifled for cl The order impugned dafed 10—5-2002 dafed 22-7—2002 are guashed. The fi‘l’s which have been recovered from him ar'rified copy of This ordV