1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10686 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.01.2011 Krishan Chand son of Sh. Mangat Ram, resident of H. No. 744, Sector 10, Faridabad. ......Petitioner Vs Union of India, through the Secretary (Labour), Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110001 and others. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. O.S. Batalvi, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 547 of 2011 Civil Miscellaneous application is allowed. Additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 is taken on record. CWP No. 10686 of 2009 This PIL has been filed seeking interference of the Court 2 with the continuance of the respondent No. 3 in office on the basis of acceptance of his date of birth as 12.11.1952 instead of 17.08.1948 as originally recorded. Such acceptance was made by an order dated 28.08.2008 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II (HRM-I). No question of maintainability of the writ petition as a PIL or that no matter of public interest is disclosed has been raised by the respondents. We, therefore, proceed to notice the essential facts in which the present proceeding has been initiated. The third respondent entered service in the Employees Provident Fund Organization in the year 1987. In the seniority list that was published in the year 1989 his date of birth was shown as 17.08.1948 on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate. The third respondent protested, claiming his date of birth to be 12.11.1952. The said claim of the third respondent was accepted and the necessary correction was made. However, this correction was reversed in the year 2003 leading to the institution of a writ proceeding before the Allahabad High Court wherein the eventual order that was passed was to file a civil suit. In the civil suit filed by the third respondent, while his date of birth was adjudged to be 12.11.1952, the relief of a direction for correction of the date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate was refused primarily on the ground that the period stipulated by the Regulations of the School Board for such correction was over. Accordingly, this suit was dismissed though, perhaps, it should have been shown as partly decreed. 3 On the basis of the date of birth declared by the Civil Court of Uttar Pradesh, the third respondent made a representation for grant of consequential relief which having been refused, the third respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in Original Application No. 858-HR of 2006. By order dated 08.08.2007, the application filed by the third respondent was dismissed. In doing so, the learned Tribunal took the view that the Civil Court decree did not bind the Provident Fund Organization as the said Organization was not a defendant in the suit. The learned Tribunal also took the view that under the Regulations in force of the School Board conducting the matriculation examination, at the relevant point of time, the minimum age to appear in the matriculation examination was 15 years which made it impossible for the third respondent to appear in the said examination in the year 1965 if his date of birth was to be 12.11.1952. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal, the third respondent moved this Court by instituting a writ proceeding registered and numbered Civil Writ Petition No. 16114-CAT of 2007. By order dated 15.10.2007, the said writ petition was dismissed by taking the view that the conclusion of the learned Tribunal that the third respondent (petitioner in the CWP) could not have appeared in the matriculation examination in the year 1965 if his date of birth was to be 12.11.1952, was not an unreasonable or an impossible view. No appeal against the order of this Court passed in the writ petition was filed by any of the aggrieved parties including the third respondent. While the matter was so situated, the third respondent filed 4 a representation dated 17.10.2007 for acceptance of his date of birth as 12.11.1952. In the said application, the details of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal and this Court were not mentioned though it appears that there is a subsequent representation dated 25.02.2008 wherein the said facts are incorporated. On the basis of the aforesaid representation, a communication dated 25.08.2008 was addressed to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment recommending the acceptance of the claimed date of birth of the third respondent. Thereafter, the impugned office order dated 28.08.2008 was passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II (HRM – I) changing the date of birth of the third respondent from 17.08.1948 to 12.11.1952. Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, apart from submitting that the order correcting the date of birth of the third respondent is virtually in review of the order of this Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 16114-CAT of 2007, has further submitted that irrelevant and extraneous facts have been taken into account in the decision making process leading to the office order dated 28.08.2008. Mr. Mittal has further submitted that from the communication dated 25.08.2008, it appears that the basis of the recommendation for acceptance of the claim of the third respondent is the information obtained from the School Board of Uttar Pradesh that there is no minimum age for sitting in the matriculation examination. That apart, it has been pointed out that from the said communication it also appears 5 that the recommendation was made for acceptance of the claim of the third respondent to avoid litigation and that too at the fag end of the career of the said respondent. Learned Counsel has also pointed out that from the communication dated 25.08.2008, it does not appear that the order of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 16114-CAT of 2007 had been considered while making the recommendation which would go to show omission of a highly relevant fact in the decision making process. Referring to the file notings, which have been placed on record by means of the miscellaneous application filed by the third respondent, which is also on board today, learned Counsel has pointed out that in the said file notings the decree passed by the Civil Court of Uttar Pradesh where the Central Provident Fund Organization was not a defendant has been taken into account in determining the entitlement of the third respondent. The said decree, according to learned Counsel, is not at all relevant for the purposes of a correct decision in the present case in as much as the Central Provident Fund Organization was not a defendant in the suit in which the decree was passed. Controverting the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.S. Virk, learned Counsel for the third respondent as well as Mr. O.S. Batalvi, learned Counsel for the Union of India have vehemently argued that the file notings enclosed as Annexure C/1 to the miscellaneous application i.e. C.M. No. 547 of 2011 would squarely indicate that all relevant facts including the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 16114-CAT of 2007 were duly taken note of before recommending the 6 case of the third respondent for acceptance. Viewed in the aforesaid context, according to the learned Counsels, the decision making process does not suffer from any vice or arbitrariness or even exclusion of any relevant facts. The recitals contained in the communication dated 25.08.2008, reference to which has been made earlier, according to learned Counsels has to be understood in the context of the facts available in the file notings. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the rival parties. According to us, the issue is capable of being decided within a short compass. Despite the decree passed by the Civil Court of Uttar Pradesh, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in Original Application No. 858-HR of 2006 had concluded in its order dated 08.08.2007 that the third respondent would not be entitled to any relief. The said order of the learned Tribunal has been affirmed by this Court in CWP No. 16114-CAT of 2007. The aforesaid view of the learned Tribunal must be understood to have been reiterated by this Court. The order of this Court has attained finality in law. We, therefore, fail to see how on the strength of other antecedent or even subsequent facts, which had not received the consideration of this Court, a view contrary to what has been recorded by the Court in its order dated 15.10.2007 could have been taken by any authority acting under the law. To permit any such view to be taken, so long the Court's order dated 15.10.2007 remains in force, would be to bring anarchy to a system founded on the basic principle of the Rule of Law. 7 If, according to the respondents, there existed facts and circumstances which justified another view, the correct course of action in law would have been to seek a review of the High Court's order dated 15.10.2007 and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with such modified view that may have been expressed by the Court. Clearly and evidently, the aforesaid course of action was not adopted by the respondents. Instead, having unilaterally arrived at a conclusion that it was justified to take a view contrary to the Court's view expressed in the order dated 15.10.2007 the respondents had proceeded to pass the office order dated 28.08.2008 correcting the date of birth of the third respondent from 17.08.1948 to 12.11.1952. We cannot subscribe to the conclusions reached by the respondents in the matter on the aforesaid limited score. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the order dated 28.08.2008. Needless to say, it will always be open to the respondents to take fresh action in the matter after seeking a review of the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 16114-CAT of 2007, if they are so advised. PIL shall stand disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 14.01.2011 Amodh