IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1339 of 2009 NAR SINGH S/O SHRI SUKHDEO BARAI, R/O VILLAGE- SALKHUADIH, P.S.- SALKHUA, P.O- SALKHUA BAZAR, DISTRICT- SAHARSA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2. THE RAILWAY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY GORAKHPUR (U.P.) 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL) CUM-CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY GORAKHUR (U.P.). 5. THE DIVISIONAL RAIL MANAGER ( PERSONNEL) NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY SONEPUR, BIHAR 6. THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (PERSONNEL) NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY SAMASTIPUR. 7. THE CHIEF P.W. 1 NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY, BIHPUR. 8. THE WELFARE INSPECTOR NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY, SONEPUR 9. HEAD CLERK (PERSONNEL) NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY P.S.-BIHPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Siya Ram Sahia, Advocate For the Respondents :- Mr. Madhu Parasunn, Advocate -------------------- 2 10/02/2009 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 25th September, 2008 passed by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 899 of 2000. Mr. Siya Ram Sahi appears on behalf of the petitioner. Respondents are represented by Madhu Prasunn. Petitioner raised his grievance before the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) that retiring him on 31.12.2000 treating his date of birth as 31.12.1940 is illegal. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 31.12.1947 and in that view of the matter he ought not to have retired from service on 31.12.2000. - 2 - The Tribunal had considered the claim of the petitioner and negated the same, while doing so it has observed as follows: “We have found from the file of the service record that at the time when the applicant was appointed to Group „D‟ post, his age was determined on the basis of medical examination. It was on that basis his date of birth was recorded as 31.12.1940. However, it was tampered with the connivance of the then Head Clerk, namely, Ramakant lal Das and altered to 31.12.1947 by over-writing. This conclusion was reached by the department on the report of the Vigilance Department. The applicant was accordingly informed by letter dated 13.8.1994 but he did not approached the Tribunal till he was retired on that basis. He has approached the Tribunal only in the year 2000. It is also relevant to mention that the department has also obtained the report from the Forensic Laboratory about the over-writing altering the date of birth from 31.12.1940 to 31.12.1947. It is under these circumstances the applicant was retired w.e.f. 31.12.2000.” We do not find any error in the same. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal had declined the relief, but it had directed the respondents to pay the retrial dues forth with, if not already paid, but this direction of the Tribunal is not being carried out. If that be so, petitioner is free to bring proper proceeding for giving effect to the aforesaid direction of the - 3 - Tribunal. Application stands dismissed with the observation aforesaid. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin