Dismissed

Bimbadhar Roul v. State

Orissa HC20 Mar 2019WP(C)/10568/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa dismissed a writ petition by a retired State employee challenging the Orissa Administrative Tribunal's refusal to correct the date of birth in his service record. The court upheld the Tribunal's view that the applicant's delayed representation after signing the service book and attestation rendered the plea meritless.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petition deemed devoid of merits; connected cases disposed of.

Bimbadhar Roul Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 10568 of 2005

¶2

20.03.2019

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶4

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment/order dated 16.05.2005, passed by the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No.388(C) of 1995, under Annexure-24 whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application preferred by the applicantpetitioner.

¶5

We have perused the impugned order of the learned Tribunal in detail. On a perusal of the said order, it is seen that learned Tribunal while considering the matter has observed at paragraphs 3 to 7, which read as under:

¶6

“3. In the reply given by the respondents the factual backdrop as indicated in the O.A. has been admitted. It is stated that at the time of entry into service the applicant gave his signature on the service roll wherein his date of birth has been written as 3.3.1935. As he was aware of it and slept over the matter till 1992, his case has been rightly rejected. Having said thus, it is averred in the counter that as per the provisions of Rule-65 of the O.G.F.R. Vol-2 (for short the rule) the applicant has been rightly retired on 31.3.1995. Having said thus, they have prayed for dismissal of the case. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the provisions of rule-65 of the O.G.F.R. is not applicable to the applicant as it came to force on 28.9.92. It is further averred that as enquiry was made and it was found that his date of birth has been wrongly written as 3.3.1935, it should have been corrected. Having said thus, it

¶7

-2-

¶8

is contended that the impugned orders passed by the respondents in annexure-20 as well as Annexure-18 are therefore illegal and arbitrary and should be quashed. The learned Government Advocate however has submitted that as the applicant was aware of his date of birth at the time of entry into service, the delayed prayer to correct the same should not be accepted.

¶9

4. It is true that in this case the request to correct the date of birth has been made at a belated stage. In the original service book it was also revealed that at the time of entry into service in the month of April, 1965 the applicant has given his signature at Column 7 of the first page of the service book. His date of birth at Column No.4 has been shown as 3.3.1935. Although the aforesaid entry was attested on 18.7.1973, it can safely be assumed that at the time of giving his signature the applicant know about the date of birth which was entered in the service book. At that time, he could have raised objection and moved the authority to correct the same. Instead of doing that he slept over the matte and did do only in the year, 1992 stating that he was not awared of that fact as no duplicate service book was supplied to him. Such a plea I think is not acceptable. It is true that on subsequent enquiry it was opined that his date of birth should have been entered as 3.3.1945. This aspect of the matter cannot be taken into account as the applicant himself remained callous and did not raise objection in this regard.

¶10

5. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance in cases the reference of which are given below:

¶11

i) Kumari Laxmi Satpathy Mahalaxmiversus-State of Orissa and others (1993) 1 ATT (OAT) 144,

¶12

-3-

¶13

ii) Bholanath Mohanty-versus-State of Orissa, (1999) 1 ATT (OAT) 491

¶14

iii) Agadhu Mohapatra-versus-State of Orissa and others, 1997 (2) ATT (OAT) 577, and

¶15

iv) Nabakishore Samantaray-versusState of Orissa and others (1996) 1 ATT (OAT) 51.

¶16

In the aforesaid cases mainly three things were decided namely:-

¶17

(a) Delayed representation for changing the date of birth should not be encouraged,

¶18

(b) In case of genuine mistake the enquiry be made and basing on enquiry the date of birth be changed,

¶19

(c) In the case of change of date of birth by the government out of their own accord, notice should be given to the person concerned before the same is done.

¶20

6. In this case, as I have said above, at the time of entry into service though the applicant has signed in the first page of the service book, he has not raised objection to the date of birth entered therein. Though it is stated that he signed subsequently in the year, 1973, at that time also no objection was raised. Only in the year, 1992 the representation was made to change the date of birth which according to me has rightly been rejected.

¶21

7. For the reasons indicated above, I find no merit in this case as the applicant has moved the authority at a late stage. Accordingly therefore, the case is dismissed. No costs.”

¶22

We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order and find no

¶23

-4-

¶24

case is made out to interfere with the same. Hence, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

All connected Misc. Cases/I.As. if any, are

¶26

accordingly disposed of.

¶27

.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice

¶28

…………………..……… (K.R.Mohapatra) Judge

¶29

Bimbadhar Roul v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimbadhar Roul v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saudamini Mohanty Vs State

Suresh Mohapatra Vs State

Meena Kumari Mohanta Vs State

M/S.Hari Machines Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax

O.S.W.H.C Vs Commissioner,I.T

Jaiswal Plastic Tube Vs S.T.O.,Balasore