3 / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATrISGARH AT 31$; s’i WRIT PETITION s No. £2?\ OF 2008 PETITIONER Kailash" Dubey S/o PritlTVi Dubey, aged about 55/)7ears, Bus Kalashi, Bishrampur, Ar‘ea S.E.C.L. District Sargu§7C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: . .C.L. Through: Its Chairman-cum— 2%{y/W3‘ Managing Director, Seepat Road Q M“ Bilaspur, (C.G.) ./"" 2. 1(‘he/ Chief General Manager S.E.C.L. Bishrampur Area, District Sarguja (C.G.) $6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR 9 WRIT PETITION (S) NO.2818 OF 2008 PETITIONER Kailash Dubey Versus RESPONDENTS S.E.C.L. & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri S.N. Prasad, Advocate forthe petitioner. Dr.N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Shaiiendra Shukla, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 19th day of January, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the date of birth of the petitioner is 26—11-1952, not 26-11—1947 as recorded in the service register. In support of his contention, the petitioner relies on a transfer certificate dated 4-2-1967 (Annexure — P/4) wherein the date of birth of the petitioner appears to have been recorded as 2641,1952. The second contention of the petitioner is that the Age Determination Committee (for short “the ADC") has not given the finding as per the circular dated 7-7-1992 (Annexure — P/6) wherein it is provided that if no age is recorded in respect of any employee in any statutory records and the Medical Board/Age Assessment Committee decide an age range, the mid point of the age range so recommended will be taken as the age ofthe concerned employee. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the ADC has given a range of the age of the petitioner between 55-60 years, the age of the petitioner should have been taken as 571/2 years. Thus, the report of the ADC is bad and contrary to the circular dated 7—7-1 992. 4. On a query asto whether any representation at an appropriate time has been made by the petitioner, the learned counsel submits that it is stated in the pleadings that the petitioner has already made representations, but on perusal of the papers, no representation or document has been found in support ofthe contention of the learned counseL On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitsthat the case of the petitioner is not governedE'K by clause (a) of the circular dated 7—7-1992, but by clause (b), as in $ the case of the petioner the age of the petitioner had already be recorded in the statutory records at the time of the appointment of t petitioner on 9-4-1975, thus clause (a) of the circular would not be applicable. In clause (b) it is clearly mentioned that if there is variation of age in the various statutory records, the nearest point of the age range as recorded in Form-D register Will be accepted as the age of the employee concerned. ln the case on hand, the age recorded in the service record is 26—1 1-1947, therefore the petitioner was rightly retired from his service. Dr. Shukla further submits‘that the petitioner has made a representation at the fag end of his service career, which is notpermissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in a cetena of decisions. No other document except the transfer certificate, which has been produced in this Court, which, it appears, was not produced at the time of his appointment. ln the service record, the date of birth of the petitioner was stated to be 26—11-1947 and in other document namely; Last Pay Certificate (Annexure — P/3) the same date of birth i.e. 26-11-1947 has been recorded and, as such, at this stage, the petitioner may not be permitted to take advantage of a document, which was never produced before the authOrities. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. S.C. Chad/7a1 observed that “normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service-book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records.” The identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in Benudhar Pradhan v. The State of Chhattisgarhz wherein this Court observed as under: l l l I, l g “13. In the matter of correction in the date of birth, the consistent view of Hon’ble Supreme Court is that correction in entries made in government records on the basis of which the government servant got the service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before retirement or at the fag end of his I 1 (2004) 3 SCC 394 2 WP No.536 of 2004 (decided on 18-1-2010) y l x ti e h retirement. (t is well settled that an employee will not be permitted to apply ' for change of date of birth at the fag end of his service career and in any case the High Court ought not to have exercised its writ jurisdiction to determine the reai date of birth. (See U. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others v Raj Kumar AgnihotrP and Coal Indié Ltd. and Another Vs. Ardhendu Bikes Bhattacharjee and others‘)”; Having considered all the facts of the case, particularly the petitioner has failed to establish that the petitioner has immediately raised the dispute with regard to his date of birth, as according to him he had passed 7‘“ class in the year 1967 and joined ’the service subsequently in the year 1975. Thus, at this stage, this transfer certificate may not be taken on record. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/— satish K. Agnih‘mfi 1 Jildge Gowri 3 (2005) 11 SCC 465 4 2005 (12) SCC 201 x