ups_00290 — Date of Birth recorded in Service Register and accepted by the employee determines the date of retirement

Date of Birth recorded in Service Register and accepted by the employee determines the date of retirement — The chunk pertains to an Original Application (O.A.) No. 523 of 2007, a case regarding a retired Extra Departmental Delivery Agent named S. Thulaseedhara Kurup. The issue at hand concerns a discrepan... — Facts: The Applicant, an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA for short), Puliyorakonam Branch Post Office entered in service treating his age as 21 years supported by the Malayalam Era date of birth as 14-5-1119 and certified by Assistant Surgeon of Government dispensary on 13-6-1965. In the service book opened when he joined as a leave reserve Group 'D', his DoB is entered as 19-12-1944 which was signed by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Trivandrum North Sub- Division and also by the Applicant on 26-6-1980. He was continued in service. When his pension papers were prepared in 2004, it was noticed the DoB is 29-12-1943 as per Malayalam Era DoB entered as 14-5-1119 which was converted in Christian Era as 19-12-1944 by the Appointing Authority. Hence he has to retire on 31-12-2003 due to erroneous DoB entered in SB. By Order, dated 9-6-2004, he was retired on superannuation with retrospective effect from 31-12-2003. The period of excess service was regulated as per rule later. On 8-2-2005, he received a notice to the effect from Senior Superintendent of Post Offices to treat the period of 161 days from 1-1-2004 to 9-6-2004 as dies non. His salary for that period paid to him was recovered from his DCRG. The Applicant submitted to the authorities that his DoB entered as 19-12-1944 is supported by the Headmaster's certificate handed over by him to the authorities and for 38 years his DoB as entered was not doubted. Hence he requested to drop the proposal from 1-1-2004 to 9-6-2004 as dies non and refund the amount irregularly recovered from his gratuity. The Senior Superintendent of Post submitted that the Applicant failed to check the records during his service to correct his DoB. Hence the action taken by the Respondents is justified. His representation to higher authorities also did not elicit any reply. Hence this OA is filed for the above relief. The Respondents plead that his DoB as per Malayalam Era is 29-12-1943 which was wrongly recorded by the then authorities as 19-12-1944. Hence his retention beyond 31-12-2003 is incorrect which view is also supported by the Postmaster-General of the Division. Hence the decision taken by the Respondents cannot be questioned. The above plea of the Respondents was resisted by the Applicant as no error was committed by him and no prior notice was given to him before retiring him. He was permitted to work till 9-6-2004 by the Respondents and they cannot now turn back to recover the alleged excess amount of salary paid to him. The Respondents submitted that he cannot be continued beyond 60 years of age. The Tribunal called for the Service Book of the Applicant and noted his recorded DoB in the SB as 19-12-1944 supported by Medical Certificate determining his age as 21 years as on 13-9-1965 which corresponds to his date of birth as 19-12-1944. In the case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran [ 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155 ], the Apex Court held that the date entered in Service Records and accepted by the employee should be taken as correct date of birth. Similar views were taken by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Gulaichi [ 2003 (6) SCC 483 ], State of U.P. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya [ 2005 (6) SCC 49 ] and in the case of State of Gujarat v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi [ 2006 (6) SCC 537 ]. In the case of Seema Ghosh v. TISCO [ 2006 (7) SCC 722 ], the certificate of Medical Board was accepted regarding DoB. When this was challenged by the employee, the Supreme Court held that the management permitted the employee to work based on that date, the employee cannot challenge the medical certificate. In the present case, the DoB as entered as 9-6-1944 has been corroborated by the Medical Board in 1965. In the case of Hari Singh v. State of Bihar [ 2000 (10) SCC 284 ], wherein the employee in that case was superannuated before the date of birth as entered in service book without notice to that employee was allowed to continue as per DoB entered in the Service Book. While analyzing so it was held: