Full Judgment
2. Both the applicants have joined hands together to challenge the orders of their respective superannuation (Annexures-A/1 & A-1/1). It was urged on behalf of applicant No. 1 that he was appointed on 9th November, 1953, on the post of EDDA and, at the time of his appointment, he was illiterate and, therefore, his dale of birth was recorded and was accepted on the basis of the horoscope by the respondents authorities as 16th March, 1932. The applicant No. 2 also is said to have been appointed on the post of EDMC on 9th November 1953, and he also was in illiterate at the time of his appointment. The date of birth of applicant No. 2 is said to have been recorded by the icspondenls authorities as 27th October 1931. On assertion of these facts, the applicants have prayed for the reliefs, as already referred to above.
3. The official respondents have pleaded, inter-alia, that the applicants have come-up with false assertion in their application; and, in regard to their dales of birth, they had been requested times without number to furnish any proof of their dates of birth, but they declined to furnish their dates of birth. In the compelling circumstance, the respondents authorities had no option than to act on the applications of both the applicants filed at the time of their appointment wherein the applicant No. 1 has asserted his age as 25 years on 20th October 1953, vide Annexure-R71, and the applicant No. 2 had asserted his age to be 30 years on 15th October 1953. As per the dates of birth declared by both the applicants, they ought to have retired much prior to the impugned order dated 1st October, 1994 (Annexures-A-1 & A-1/1). it was further submitted that respondents No.5 & 6 had been selected by the Screening Committee through a selection process initiated through the Employment Exchange. The applicant's plea of malafide, in regard to appointment of respondents No. 5 & 6, has been emphatically denied.
4. One of the private respondents, namely, the private respondent No. 6 (Ashok Baitha) also filed separate written statement wherein he has refuted the claim of the applicant and has asserted that he had been appointed to the post of EDMC through a regular selection process.
5. A short question, therefore, arises whether, the applicants were entitled to correction of their dates of birth, as asserted by them, and if so, whether they were entitled to the consequential reliefs as sought for? 6. Both the applicants while asserting that they were illeterate persons at the time of appointment have asserted to have declared their respective date of birth at the time of appointment. In regard to the applicant No. 1 it was said that he had furnished his Horoscope in Support of his date of birth. However, we find that for the purpose of the instant case no documentary proof has been produced on behalf of either of the two applicants in support of their case, Naturally, therefore, one would lean to accept the plea of the official respondents that the applicants, inspite of being requested repeatedly, did not furnish any proof in'support of their respective contention for correction of their dates of birth. It is true that the descriptive particulars, supposed to have been prepared at the time of appointment of the applicants, ought to have been produced, but even in absence thereof, we find some relevant materials said to be under the signature of the applicants which would determine the dispute between the parties.
7. The official respondents have produced two applications, one being dated, 20th October, 1953, pertaining to applicant No. 1, vide Annexure-R/1, and the other dated, 15th October, 1953, pertaining to applicant No. 2, vide Annexure-R.2. Through these two applications the applicants prayed separately for their appointment as Delivery Agents in village Janta Jaridih. The concerned authority gave endorsement on these applications recommending their appointment. The applicant No. 1 has affixed his signature in English as well as in Hindi on the application (Annexure-R/1). The applicant No. 2 also has given his signature in Hindi on the application (Annexure-R/2), the applicant No.1 asserted his age while filing the application (Annexure-R/1) as 25 years and the applicant No. 2, as 30 years in Annexure-R/2. If we accept the age declared by the applicants in their respective applications (Annexure-R/1 & R/2) it would definitely demolish the entire case of the applicants.
8. Probably, the applicants were alive of the aforesaid applications (Annexure-R/1 & R/2) bearing their signatures and, therefore, they alleged in this OA, without making reference. To these two papers, that the official respondents had obtained signatures on blank papers in respect of their superannuation. This plea was not tenable, first for the reason that these papers were as old as of the year 1953 bearing duplicate signatures of each of the applicants together with endorsement of the authority concerned recommending their appointment.
In order to establish the genuinenessof these two applications (Annexures-R/1 & R/2), the official respondents have also produced the certificates (Annexures-R/3 & R/4) pertaining to the date of joining of the applicant No. 1 as 11th November, 1953, and of applicant No. 2 as 10th November, 1953, with their signatures. Over those the relieving officer also has given signature by the side of the signatures of the applicant No. 1 & applicant No. 2 appearing at Annexures-R/3 & R/4) which also bear the official seal of the post office.
9. Therefore, there was no manner of doubt with regard to the genuineness of the aforesaid papers produced on behalf of the official respondents i.e., to say, Annexures-R/1, R/2, R/3 & R/4. If all those papers considered together, even on strict scrutiny, would establish that in the year 1953 when the applicants joined their respective post in the concerned Post Office, their age was 25 years (in case of applicant No. 1) and 30 years (in case of applicant No. 2). If the age declared by them in Annexures-R/1 & R/2 are accepted, it would lead us to the hard fact that the applicant No. 1 was bound to retire on 20th October, 1993, and the applicant No. 2 on 15th October, 1988. It appears that because of the dispute raised by the applicants, some time was consumed while asking them by the concerned authority to bring forth their respective proof of age, but ultimately when they failed to produce any such evidence, the official respondents had to take decision on 1st October, 1994. (which was much later to their due date of retirement) making them to retire on superannuation. By the said date i.e., 1st October 1994, both the applicants had already completed 65 years of age. We do not find anything wrong about it.
10. The applicants also pleaded malafide against the respondent No. 4, who, according to them wanted to accommodate the brother of his colleague one, Satya Narayan Singh, and also to oblige one of his bosses (name not disclosed) and, accordingly, he abruptly issued the order of superannuation on 1st October, 1994. This was quite a vague plea and we find no material to justify the same. As against this, we would say that the official respondents clearly pleaded in para-8 of the written statement that the private respondents No. 5 & 6 were selected to the post of EDDAs in due course of selection process.
11. Before coming to a conclusion, it would be apt to refer to the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd, and. Ors. v. Dinbandhu Mazumdar and Ors.t AIR 1995 SC 1499. It prescribed that ordinarily High Courts should not in exercise of the discretionary writ jurisdiction entertain a writ application filed by an employee of the Govt. or its instrumentality towards the fag end of his service seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his service or leave record with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement. Such an effort was to be discouraged on the ground of acquisition, undue delay and lapses. This plea if applied in the instant case would surely disentitle the applicants to any relief sought for.
12. For the reasons, aforesaid, we would confidently hold that this OA has no merit. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.