IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1462 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1723 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 7013 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1462 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. The Chairman & M.D., N.P.C.C. Ltd., Plot No. 67-68, Sector-25, Faridabad (Haryana). 2. The Chief Manager (Hr), N.P.C.C. Ltd., Plot No. 67-68, Sector-25, Faridabad (Haryana). 3. The Manager (P&A), N.P.C.C. Ltd. Plot No. 67-68, Sector-25, Faridabad (Haryana). 4. The Deputy General Manager, N.P.C.C. Ltd. Plot No. 67-68, Sector-25, Faridabad (Haryana). 5. The Additional General Manager, N.P.C.C. Ltd. Corporate Office, New Delhi-110010. 6. The Zonal Manager, N.P.C.C. Bihar Zone 15, I.A.S. Colony, 1st Floor, Near Syndicate Bank, Kidwaipuri, Patna-1. 7. The Project Manager, N.P.C.C. Ltd. PMGSY Works, Nalanda, Vijay Laxmi Complex, 2nd Floor, Flat No. 01, Soh Sarai, Biharsharif, Nalanda, Pin-803118 .... .... Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Central Public Works Department, New Delhi – 110019. ……… Respondent/Respondent 2. Kuldeep Sharma @ Kuldeep Mistry, S/o Bishundhari Mistry Car Penter T.M. Spl. Grade-II, N.P.C.C. Ltd., R/o Flat No.1, Vijay Laxmi Complex, Near Kishan Cinema, Sohsarai, Biharsarif, District- Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. R.C. Sinha Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocates. ====================================================== Patna High Court LPA No.1462 of 2011 (2) dt.23-11-2011 2 / 5 2 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 23-11-2011 With the consent of the learned advocates, the Appeal is heard and decided today. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11th August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 1723 of 2011, the respondent National Project Construction Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The respondent no. 2 Kuldeep Sharma was the employee of the Corporation. On reaching the age of superannuation, under order dated 11th August 2010, he was ordered to be retired from service on 28th February 2011. Feeling aggrieved the respondent no. 2 - the writ petitioner filed above CWJC No. 1723 of 2011 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petitioner claimed that his real name was ‘Kuldeep Mistry’ and that his date of birth was 13th February 1956. He was, therefore, not due to retire in 2011 but had a right to continue in service up to 28th February 2014. In support thereof, he produced an S.S.C. mark-sheet issued in the name of ‘Kuldeep Mistry’, son of Bishundhari Mistry indicating that the said ‘Kuldeep Mistry’ had passed S.S.C. examination in 1974; and an affidavit made by himself. The writ petitioner prayed that his service record may be corrected; his name be entered as ‘Kuldeep Mistry’ in place of ‘Kuldeep Sharma’ and the date of birth may be corrected from 2nd February 1953 to that of 13th February 1956. Patna High Court LPA No.1462 of 2011 (2) dt.23-11-2011 3 / 5 3 The petition was contested by the Corporation. According to the Corporation, the appellant’s name and the date of birth were recorded in the service book as intimated by the appellant. All along, the appellant had continued in service in the name of ‘Kuldeep Sharma’. In the documents like nomination papers, provident fund papers, pension papers etc. the writ petitioner mentioned his name as ‘Kuldeep Sharma’. There was no justification for the writ petitioner to claim change in the name or the date of birth. The learned single Judge has believed the contentions raised by the writ petitioner that ‘Mistry’ and ‘Sharma’ are common surnames representing a particular community. That name of the writ petitioner was inadvertently entered as ‘Kuldeep Sharma’ in his service card; the fact that the name of the father of the petitioner was entered as Bishnudhari Mistry also weighed with the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, therefore, allowed the writ petition and issued following directions:- I. The respondent shall treat the petitioner as ‘Kuldeep Mistry’ not ‘Kuldeep Sharma’ II. Order dated 11.08.2010 as contained in Annexure-IV insofar as it fixes the date of superannuation of the petitioner as 28.02.3011 is quashed. III. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service on production of copy of the present order. The date of birth of the petitioner shall be treated as 13.02.1956 as appearing in the matriculation Patna High Court LPA No.1462 of 2011 (2) dt.23-11-2011 4 / 5 4 certificate (Annexure-1). IV. Petitioner shall be treated continuously in service till he attains the age of superannuation treating his date of birth as 13.02.1956. V. Petitioner shall be paid 50% of the salary/wages for the period he was kept out of job/service. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has preferred this Appeal. We have heard the learned advocates extensively. We are of the opinion that the claim made by the writ petitioner is unsustainable. The name entered in the official record cannot be altered for asking. It is indisputable that the writ petitioner entered in the service in the name of ‘Kuldeep Sharma’ and continued as such till the end. Only after the order of his superannuation was made on 11th August 2010, he raised the dispute in respect of the entries made in his service record including his name. The reliance placed on matriculation certificate is hardly acceptable. What the petitioner has produced is a photocopy of the matriculation certificate issued on 5th October 2010. Merely because the certificate refers to some ‘Kuldeep Mistry’, son of Bishnudhari Mistry it cannot be said that the person named in the certificate is the writ petitioner. The name or the date of birth cannot be changed on the basis of the affidavit made by the writ petitioner himself. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the surnames ‘Sharma’ and ‘Mistry’ denote the same community. Besides, even if the said two surnames denote the same community, the claim made by the appellant at the fag end of the Patna High Court LPA No.1462 of 2011 (2) dt.23-11-2011 5 / 5 5 service is absurd and untenable. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 11th August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 1723 of 2011 is set aside. CWJC No. 1723 of 2011 is dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)