Judgment:
D. Biswas, J.
1. This writ petition is filed controverting the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 9.4.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Original Application No. 391/2002. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the writ petitioner praying for a declaration that he was born on 10.6.1953 and, consequent thereupon, to allow him to continue in service of the Railways.
2. We have heard Mr. R.L. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Railways.
3. The writ petitioner joined the services of the Railways as Dak Carrier with effect from 5.8.1971 initially on daily wage basis. He was given authorized pay with effect from 3.6.1972 and was confirmed in the post of Khalashi by the order dated 7.9.1978. In the meantime, his service book was prepared. In the service book, all necessary particulars were entered on 5.6.1974 showing his date of birth as 15.12.1942. The petitioner also put his LTI which were duly attested. That apart, he also put his signature in Hindi. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner himself had declared his date of birth as on 15.12.1942 at the time of entry in service.
4. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was refused railway pass in the year 1980 due to some mistake in recording his date of birth and therefore, that there was something wrong was within his notice. He did not take any step immediately to know what the defect was and whether any correction was necessary. That apart, in the provisional seniority list dated 4.10.1977, his date of birth was shown as on 15.12.1942. The petitioner did not dispute the above seniority list. The seniority lists prepared as on 1.9.1989 and 1.4.1991 also showed that his date of birth is 15.12.1942. The petitioner did not raise any objection. It was only in the year 2002, he submitted a representation for correction of his date of birth relying upon three documents i.e. the record of service of casual labourers, the transfer order dated 23.12.1972 and a certificate issued by the school in the year 1965. The learned Tribunal observed that no reliance could be placed on the record of service of the casual labourers as it was in the custody of the petitioner and the entries therein not duly verified. It is held that it cannot be treated as a conclusive proof of the date of birth of an employee unless supported by other documents. The transfer order dated 23.12.1972 mentions that the writ petitioner was born on 10.6.1953. Normally, date of birth is not required to be reflected in the order of transfer. The learned Tribunal rejected this document on that ground. We are also of the opinion that this document cannot be treated as a proof of date of birth of the petitioner. The School certificate produced by the petitioner was issued on 5.4.1965. The original is not on record. This certificate has been issued showing the date of birth as on 10.6.1953. The original of this document is also not produced before the learned Tribunal as well as before this Court. It was issued in the year 1965 and, therefore, the date of birth was very much within the knowledge of the petitioner. Despite that, on his instructions, the entries were made in the service book showing that he was born in the year 1942.
5. In so far the service book is concerned, it may be mentioned here that it has been prepared on the information given by the writ petitioner. The particulars relating to the petitioner have been reflected in the service book. The petitioner has not disputed the correctness of other entries made in the service book except his date of birth. There is no interpolation or manipulation in the date of birth recorded at the instance of the writ petitioner. In such a situation, it would not be permissible for a Writ Court to interfere and order correction of the date of birth that too in the absence of other valid documents. It is not a case that the date of birth as on 10.06.1953 was recorded in the service book as on 15.12.1942 and was subsequently manipulated and interpolated. Even in such a case, the party aggrieved is supposed to knock the door of the higher authorities and the Court without lapse of time. There is long delay in his approach. He had filed his representation for correction of the date of birth only in the year 2002 though the gradation lists issued from time to time reflected the date of birth as recorded in the service book.
6. We have also gone through the judgments in Moirangthem Irabot Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors. reported in 1998(4) GLT 332, wherein relief was granted because of arithmetical calculation in issuing' the notice regarding superannuation relying upon the date of birth recorded in the service book. This decision is of no help in the given situation. The decision in R. Lianchhawana v. State of Mizoram and Anr. reported in 1999(1) GLT 589 stands on a different factual background. In that case, the date of birth of the incumbent was altered in violation of the principles of natural justice. The incumbent was not heard before correction. In the instant case, there is no alteration of the date of birth in the service book. The petitioner cannot be given any relief on the basis of the said judgment. In Yumnam Sarat Chandra Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors. reported in 2001(2) GLT 175, the authority suo-motu altered the date of birth of the incumbent without providing any opportunity of hearing to the incumbent. On that count, the court had to interfere. The case at hand is completely different. We do not find anything in the aforesaid judgment which can be of any assistance to the writ petitioner.
For reasons above, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Order accordingly.