Chanderwati Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh Through Its Financial Secretary-cum-secretary Engineering and Others

Chanderwati vs Union Territory Chandigarh Through Its Financial Secretary-cum-secretary Engineering and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh Decided Feb 28, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/944667

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/944667
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Judge: The Honourable Mrs. Shyama Dogra, Member (J)
Decided On: Feb 28, 2012
Case Number: Original Application No.1283-CH-2011 & MA 165 of 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chanderwati

Respondent

Union Territory Chandigarh Through Its Financial Secretary-cum-secretary Engineering and Others

Excerpt

.....given by the applicant showing same date of birth (16.2.1962) is not traceable in the office. however a copy thereof has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. it is also orally informed by the learned counsel for the respondents on their instructions that apart from this record (certificate), the respondents do not have any other record to show on what basis some other date of birth of the applicant was record in the notification issued on 20.5.1996. 6. thus, in view of these facts and circumstances of the case, it is inferred from the certificate and affidavit that the applicant’s date of birth is 16.2.1962 and not 06.2.1952. it appears that date of 06.2.1952 has been inadvertently recorded in the notification because the respondents have not shown any authenticated document on the basis of which her date of birth in the notification was recorded as 06.2.1952. thus, it is held that applicant has ably passed through substantial piece of evidence that her date of birth is 16.2.1962 to enable her to continue to work as daily wager further. 7. therefore, taking into consideration that this is not a case of change of date of birth at the way end of service career but it is a case for correction of date of birth already recorded and duly authenticated through documentary evidence already on record with the respondents and whose authenticity and genuineness is further confirmed by the respondents themselves, the respondents are directed to take 16.2.1962 as the date of birth of the applicant and allow her continue as daily wager as per law and rules. 8. in terms of these observations and directions as above, this o.a. stands disposed of with no orders as to costs.

Full Judgment

Oral:

MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. On 10.2.2012, to expedite the matter, without awaiting for reply from the respondents, they were directed to produce the relevant record relating to Date of Birth of the applicant.

3. Today, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record a copy of the Letter Dt.25.02.2012 from the Executive Engineer, C.P. Division No.2 (Roads), Chandigarh informing therein that Sh. Jeet Ram, Senior Assistant and Sh. Gurjit Singh, Sectional Officers of their office had visited the office of Headmaster, Govt. Primary School, Malhapur Jannu, Tehsil-Bilari, Distt. Muradabad and got the Date of Birth of the applicant and found to be duly authenticated as per copy of School Leaving Certificate, enclosed which the letter and the same certificate is already available with the respondents. In this certificate applicant’s date of birth is shown as 16.2.1962, which she claims to be her actual date of birth.

4. In the said letter, it is also informed that the original affidavit given by the applicant showing same date of birth (16.2.1962) is not traceable in the office. However a copy thereof has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the applicant.

5. It is also orally informed by the learned counsel for the respondents on their instructions that apart from this record (Certificate), the respondents do not have any other record to show on what basis some other date of birth of the applicant was record in the Notification issued on 20.5.1996.

6. Thus, in view of these facts and circumstances of the case, it is inferred from the certificate and affidavit that the applicant’s date of birth is 16.2.1962 and not 06.2.1952. It appears that date of 06.2.1952 has been inadvertently recorded in the Notification because the respondents have not shown any authenticated document on the basis of which her date of birth in the Notification was recorded as 06.2.1952. Thus, it is held that applicant has ably passed through substantial piece of evidence that her date of birth is 16.2.1962 to enable her to continue to work as daily wager further.

7. Therefore, taking into consideration that this is not a case of change of date of birth at the way end of service career but it is a case for correction of date of birth already recorded and duly authenticated through documentary evidence already on record with the respondents and whose authenticity and genuineness is further confirmed by the respondents themselves, the respondents are directed to take 16.2.1962 as the date of birth of the applicant and allow her continue as daily wager as per law and rules.

8. In terms of these observations and directions as above, this O.A. stands disposed of with no orders as to costs.

Same Court & Year Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh · 2012 Same Parties Chanderwati vs Union Territory Chandigarh Through Its Financi... Same Subject Education Same Judge The Honourable Mrs. Shyama Dogra, Member (J)