Patna High Court
WRIT PETITION 8481 of 2017 on 24 November 1956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8481 of 2017
======================================================
Ramesh Singh Alias Ramesh Prasad Sharma S/o Late Triveni Singh Residentof Village-Pura, Post Office Pura, Police Station Tekari, District gaya.
... ... Petitioner.Versus
1.The Union of India through its General Manager, Coal India Limited,Dhanbad.Dhanbad.
2.The Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyala Bhawan, Koyala NagarDhanbad.Dhanbad.
3.The Senior Manager P, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyala Bhawan,Koyala Nagar Dhanbad, Jharkhand. Koyala Nagar Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4.The Project Officer, K.B. 10/12 Pits Colliery, Post Office Kusuda, DistrictDhanbad, Jharkhand. Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents.
Page 1 of 2
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH)
Date : 03-12-2019
No one appears for the petitioner. Learnedcounsel for the respondents is present.
2. Perused the material on record.
3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.04.2017, passed inO.A./050/ 00194/2017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal,Patna Bench, Patna (for short 'the Tribunal'), by which theoriginal application filed by the petitioner has not been admittedand the relief sought for by the petitioner has been negated.
4. In the original application, the petitioner hadchallenged the legality and validity of the order, whereby he wasdirected to retire in the month of June, 2010.
5. The contention of the petitioner was that hisdate of birth is 24.11.1956 and in view of his correct date ofbirth he would have retired on attaining the age ofsuperannuation on 23.11.2016. On such plea, he had filed theoriginal application before the Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal did not admit his application ontwo grounds. Firstly, after six years of retirement, an employeecannot have a luxury of seeking correction of date of birth.Secondly, in view of authoritative pronouncement of theHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs.T.V. Venugopalan 1994 SCC (L & S) 1385 correction of date ofbirth is not permissible at the fag end of service of career andthe public servant should seek correction within five years ofentry into the Government service and Administrative Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence to reach different conclusionas it is not a Court of Appeal as regards correction of date ofbirth.
7. Having considered the materials on record,we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly negated theprayer of the petitioner. The writ petition lacks merit. It isdismissed, accordingly.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)
Trivedi/-
(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.)
AFR/NAFRNACAV DATENAUploading Date05.12.2019Transmission DateNA
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…