Dismissed

Virendra Singh Yadav v. Union of India and 4 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2021WRIA/16865/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting an application to condone delay in seeking alteration of the petitioner's date of birth twenty-seven years after appointment, upholding the Tribunal's finding of no manifest error of law. The court noted that the petitioner had previously acquiesced to the recorded date.

What the court decided

AI extract

Virendra Singh Yadav Vs Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16865 of 2021 Petitioner :- Virendra Singh Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tulsi Singh Yadav,Abhishek Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Rajnish Kumar Rai

¶2

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Tulsi Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed, praying to quash the order dated 17.05.2019 in M.A. No. 330/2799/2018 (Delay Condonation Application) in O.A. No. 1433 of 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and to direct the respondents-authorities to rectify the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.10.1962 in place of 01.06.1959.

¶5

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find no substance in the writ petition.

¶6

The petitioner was appointed on 10.01.1985, declaring his date of birth as 01.06.1959. Petitioner also produced medical certificate dated 26.04.1988 issued by the Railway Medical Examiner wherein his date of birth is shown as 01.06.1959. Petitioner never raised any objection with regard to his recorded date of birth i.e. 01.06.1959. As per master circular No. 12 and para 225 of I.R.E.C. Vol-1, no request for alteration in the recorded date of birth can be entertained after completion of the probation period or 3 years service, whichever is earlier.

¶7

According to own case of the petitioner, he filed representation for alteration of his date of birth for the first time after lapse of about 27 years, in the year 2011. In the year 2018, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1433 of 2018 along with his delay condonation application. Detail reasons for rejecting the delay condonation application have been given in the impugned order.

¶8

We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and we find that the Tribunal has well considered the case of the petitioner and legal position. Reference in this regard may be made to para nos. 12 to 22 of the impugned order.

¶9

Thus, we find that the impugned order does not suffer from any manifest error of law. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶10

Order Date :- 26.11.2021 T.S.

Virendra Singh Yadav v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Virendra Singh Yadav v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asheesh Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Huziafa Metal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Dutt Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and 3 Others

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Avadhesh Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and 2 Others