2022-TIOL-NEWS-016 Part 2 Dated: Wednesday, January 19, 2022

2022-TIOL-80-HC-DEL-MISC

Delhi Cantonment Board Vs Ram Sharan

MISC - Service - The respondent joined the service with appellant as Junior Engineer - According to respondent his date of birth i.e., October 02, 1962, has been recorded in all the documents - The defendant published the seniority list for some of its employees / office bearers and invited objections concerning the same if any - In respect of respondent, as stated by appellant, date of birth reflected in said seniority list was October 02, 1960 - It is a case where respondent for the first time on July 31, 2013, submitted a letter to appellant alleging erroneous entry of date of birth of respondent in the Service Book as October 02, 1960, instead of October 02, 1962 - Thereafter, appellant after conducting necessary procedure responded to respondent stating the appointing authority's inability to correct alleged error of date of birth - The issue arises for consideration is whether the Trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit filed by respondent granting relief in his favour by declaring his date of birth as October 02, 1962 - Trial Court did not accept the version of appellant stating that the seniority list issued in year 2003 and 2010 respectively, wherein, the date of birth of respondent was shown as October 02, 1960, by holding that the respondent was not in knowledge of said seniority lists and hence, could not have challenged the depiction of his date of birth as October 02, 1960 - It is not a case where the certificates issued by CBSE submitted by respondent for his appointment depict the date of birth of respondent No.1 / plaintiff as October 02, 1960 - The initial document as recognised under the rules evidencing the date of birth of respondent itself depicts his date of birth as October 02, 1962 - It is not a case where there is an issue / dispute as to which date of birth is the correct one - The Trial Court rejected the plea of limitation - The court concur with the view taken by Trial Court because the finding of Trial Court was that before 2013, respondent was not in the knowledge of his date of birth being shown as October 02, 1960 - In the absence of any knowledge, there was no occasion for respondent to make a representation - It was the case of respondent that he had come to know about incorrect depiction of his date of birth as October 02, 1960, in July 2013, when he received the payslip in which his date of birth was incorrectly shown - He made a representation on July 31, 2013, which was rejected by appellant on November 03, 2014, and has filed the suit for declaration within three years in terms of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The Trial Court has rightly accepted the date of birth as October 02, 1962, which is in conformity with certificate issued by CBSE, attestation form and other documents relied upon by respondent in support of his case - In so far as the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- granted by Trial Court in favour of respondent is concerned, the basis for Trial Court to grant damages is primarily for the reason that the respondent was put to undue harassment by appellant inasmuch as the appellant took 460 days to decide the representation of respondent - The Trial Court has highlighted the facts which weighed with it for awarding damages - Hence, the challenge, insofar as grant of damages by Trial Court in favour of respondent cannot be faulted - No merit found in the appeal, same is dismissed: HC

- Application dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT