CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.16229 OF 2006 ****** In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ****** 1. UNION OF INDIA, through the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Saran Division, Chapra. 3. The Sub divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Chapra South Sub Division, Chapra. ..... Petitioners. Versus ARJUN SINGH, Son of late Thakur Prasad, resident of Village Mahamada, P.O. Mahamada, P.S. Garkha, District Saran, and Ex- EDDA/MC Mahamada EDSO in account with Chapra H.O. in Saran Postal Division. .....Respondent. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Tiwary, C.G.C. For the Respondent: Mr. Indra Deo Prasad, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ***** Kishore K. Mandal, J. This writ petition is at the instance of the Union of India and its functionaries, and is directed against the order dated 4th February, 2005(Annexure-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No.890 of 2002 (Arjun Singh vs. Union of India and others), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application preferred by the respondent herein. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be noticed. The respondent was 2 appointed/engaged as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent –cum- Mail Carrier on 21.1.953. In terms of the provision contained in the Post and Telegraphs Manual which incorporate the guidance and instructions of the offices of the Department of Posts, the respondent was made to execute a personal security bond as provided under rule 192 of the said Manual, extracts whereof has been appended as Annexure-3 to the instant writ petition. The respondent did execute the aforesaid bond on 27.3.1953 (Annexure-4). The postal authorities by a communication dated 7.4.2000 (Annexure-7), informed the respondent that he shall be completing 65 years of age on 21.1.2000, and as such he should make over charge of the office with effect from 20.4.2000. The said communication further disclosed that the official record including the gradation list records his date of birth as 21.1.1935. The matter thereafter remained pending for some time and ultimately, by a communication dated 15.11.2001 (Annexure-8), he was made to retire from the service with effect from 30.11.2001. The respondent assailed the aforesaid action of the authorities by filing O.A. No.797 of 2001. The Tribunal by order dated 11.12.2001 (Annexure-9), disposed of the said application directing the respondent authorities to treat the said original application as representation and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The representation of the respondent was considered by the respondent authorities (writ petitioner herein), and by order dated 27th of March, 3 2002, the same was rejected by a reasoned order (Annexure-10). The respondent thereafter approached the Tribunal calling in question the aforesaid order dated 27th of March, 2002 (Annexure-10) in O.A. No.890 of 2002, which has been allowed by the impugned order and hence the writ petition at the instance of the postal authorities. 3. While assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent admittedly entered into the service on 21.1.1953, and executed a personal security bond which according to the rules has to be executed by a person who has attained majority. He drew attention of the Court to the note appended to rule 192 of the extract of the manual (Annexure-3), which reads as under: “192. Official exempted from giving security. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Note- Minors, i.e. persons who have not attained the age of 18 years cannot be appointed to posts for which security is required.” 3.1) It is next contended that the official record reflects the date of birth of the respondent as 20.1.1935, and as such he was made to retire on completion of 65 years of age. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. No counter affidavit, however, has been filed on his behalf. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the enquiry with regard to date of birth made by the authorities was ex 4 parte and he was not associated therewith. It is next contended that the respondent had already furnished a document in the shape of school-leaving certificate (Annexure-5), issued on 14.4.2000, which discloses that according to the school register, 21.1.1939 is the date of birth of the respondent. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Annexure- 10 is the reasoned order passed by the petitioner which reads as under: DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna-800001. Memo No. Staff/Court Case-84/2002. Dated at Patna, the 27th March,2002. This is regarding representation of Shri Arjun Singh dated 29.12.2001 received through his Advocate Shri N.P. Sinha to be disposed of by Chief PMG, Bihar Circle, Patna as per direction of CAT, Patna Bench in O.A. No.797/2001 within three months from the date of receipt of application viz. 31.12.2001. Brief of the case is that Shri Arjun Singh, EDDA-Cum-EDMC, Mahamada EDBO in Saran Division, Chapra was retired from his post as his date of birth was 21.1.35. He filed a case in CAT, Patna Bench and claimed that his date of birth is 21.1.1939. CAT, Patna Bench disposed of the O.A. at the admission stage, without notice to the department and directed CPMG, Bihar Circle, Patna to pass reasoned order in this case. I have gone through the O.A. as well as representation of the applicant sent through his 5 Advocate along with other relevant records and rulings on the subject. There is no record available in the Post Office in support of his date of birth except Gradation List of EDAs corrected up to 1.7.99. The Certificate furnished by the applicant from L.N.P. High School, Chapra was found incorrect, on enquiry. Besides, the date of birth claimed by him viz. 21.1.39 apparently appears wrong as the applicant was appointed on 21.1.53 as ED in the Department i.e. exactly at the age of 14 years which is not at all possible in the Govt. job. Normally requests for alteration of date of birth made within five years of his entry into Govt. service is considered for examination as laid down in note 6 below FR-56 & since a decision is given by Hon. Supreme Court. Shri Arjun Singh did not agitate for his cause as per rules. In view of the above I do not find any reason for interference on behalf of the applicant hence reject his claim. Sd/- (T.S. Govindarajan) Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna-800001. To Shri Arjun Singh, EDDA-Cum-EDMC, Mahmada EDBO, in account with Chapra H.O. He will please acknowledge the receipt.” 6. The writ petitioner has placed on record Annexure-7 which definitely indicates that in one of the documents maintained by the department the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 21.1.1935. Looking to the provision of law as noticed hereinabove, it is apparent that the respondent could not have been 6 entered into service below the age of 18 years, as he was required to sign security bond as per the rules in vogue which prohibits any minor to sign the same. If 20.1.1939 is to be accepted as his date of birth, then the respondent was not legally entitled to execute the aforesaid bond/document and thereby enter into the service of the Postal Department. As per the date of birth claimed by the respondent, he was close to 14 years of age when he entered into service. The authorities have rightly referred to the provisions contained in the Fundamental Rules to come to a conclusion that any alteration/change in the date of birth respecting an employee has to be claimed and effected within five years of his entry into the Government service. Admittedly the respondent did not make any such effort. Once he was confronted with the communication commanding him to demit the office with effect from 21.1.2000, it appears the respondents managed a school-leaving certificate dated 14.4.2000, issued by the L.N.P. High School, Chapra, declaring therein that his date of birth as recorded in the school records was 21.1.1939. We further find from the records that the authorities tried to ascertain the genuineness of the said certificate by instituting an enquiry which ultimately revealed that the said certificate was issued in the name of one Arjun Prasad. The respondent herein is Arjun Singh. We further find that prior to the present attempt to furnish a school-leaving certificate and get the date of birth altered no such 7 claim or attempt was made by the respondent. At the fag-end of service, when he was already communicated about his superannuation on completion of 65 years of age, he obtained a certificate to claim alteration in his date of birth. The order disposing of the representation setting out the reasons, therefore, appears to be sound, and we agree with the same. 7. We are thus convinced that the learned Tribunal unjustly interfered with the order passed by the authorities. We accordingly allow this writ application, and set aside the order dated 4th February, 2005(Annexure-1), passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) S.K. Katriar, J. I agree. (S K Katriar, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 22nd day of April, 2010. S.K.Pathak/ (NAFR)