CommercialPedia
Indian Railways commercial circulars and policies
Digest of important judgements of CAT on ‘Date of Birth’
· 1993-01-04
Circulargeneral
Open the official Railway source
| Date | 1993-01-04 |
|---|---|
| Type | Commercial Circular |
| Topic | general |
| Official source | indianrailways.gov.in |
Summary
Digest of important judgements of CAT on ‘Date of Birth’ entry as to date of birth in the service record corrected,
Text of the circular
GOVERNMENT OF INDTA x MINTST?Y OF RATLWAYS (RATLWAY BOARD)
NO. RCNGIT=-92/BR/12 New Delhi, dated 04.01.93
The General Managers, All Indian Railways etc.,
fas per STANDARD LIST). LIST).
Sub: Digest of important judgements of CAT on ‘Date of Birth’.
rit irik
Copies of the digest of important judgements of the Central Administrative Tribunals covering various points on the subject of 'Date of Birth' are sent herewith for infor- mation and guidance. Copies of the digest may be distributed among the concerned officers at the Head Quarters/Division/ Workshops.
Ze I€ the Railway considers any other cases/ judgements as relevant for inclusion in this digest, details of the Same may be advised for Board's consideration.
Ab =
Please acknowledge receipt.
DA/SO Pages.
DIRECTOR ESTABLISHMENT ( N) RATLYWAY BOARD.
NO. ENG )I=92/RR/12 New Delhi, dated 04.01.93
1. The Directors, Indian Institute of Mechanical & Electrical Fngineering, Jamalpur, IRIS®T/Secunderabad, Indian Railway Institute of Civil Fngineering/Pune, IRIFF/Nasik and the Principal, Railway Staff College, Vadodara.
2. PS to MS, Adv(S)}, Adv(MS), Adv(Vig.), Secretary
3. मद), FOE(N), FOE( Res), EOE, E(G), fe , DS(E}), JDE( Rep), JDE(S)I & Il, USt{l), छठ RII & IT it (K.B.
DIVECTOR® ESTA आन RAILWAY BOARD.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
CONTENTS PART =I 51,No, RULING /GIST CASE PACE NO, Ly No alteration if undue advantage 1 1=3 derived by wrong declaration at 5 14=16
tine of entry into service,
Ze Request for correction of DOB at 3 T=10 fag end of service न Not to be normally accepted
LP Recorded DOB within knowledge of 4 11=13
employee and not challenged for ne = cannot be questioned later
4b Sanctity attaches to duly T 229 recorded DOB
5. Where claim for alteration is 2 dh valid, FR 56 does not act as bar
6, Five year Limitation does not 6 17. 23 apply to(the then) existing is employees,
Ta Five year limitation cannot be Bole ground for rejection 7 Bees
दिन Restrictions under FR 56 Note 5 8 30=31 on request for alteration of DOB
9. Alteration of DOB by Department 9 32=37
after five years of service,
10, Board's order of 4,.8,7972 (regarding alteration of DOB):
(a) is an executive order, not a Statutory rule,
(b) is in conflict with Rule 45 Rel
(c) cannot take away right of 10 38-53 those(already)in service.
(Full Bench judgment)
PaRT-IE Important points 54-79
SPEER EEE ETE
DIGEST OF Cases OF CASES
DATE QF BLRIE - PARTI
(1) CALCUTTA BENCH
1986(2) SLI (CAT) 297 D/ 5.6.1986
HERE वह
HOALTER ATION IF UNDUE ADVANTAGE DERIVED ITERATION IF ¥ E DERIVED
BY WRONG DECLARATION AT TIME OF ENTRY WRONG DECLARATION AT TIME OF ENTR INTO SERVICE
APPLICANT'S AGE RECORDED AS PER ASSESSMENT OF DOCTOR AT TIME OF ENTRY INTO SERVICE - APPLICANT PRODUCED SCHOOL CERTIFICATE YEARS AFTER JOINING SERVICE = WIDE DISCREPANCY IN RECORDED AGE AND AGE AS PER CERTIFICATE =
iF CLAIM ACCEPTED, APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR ADULT JOB AT TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT = HENCE APPLICATION REJECTED,
CASE REFERRED
Civil Rule No, 6492(w) of 1982 (Disting Rule No 2(w) of 1 isting wished)
a के ae
=p The applicant was appointed in the Ordnance Factory at Jehapur on 21,4.1942, ‘The first entry in his service book on 21,4.1942 regarding was as follows:-
Age: From statement न elghteen years, From appearance = twenty one years.
This entry was made by the doctor who medically examined him at that time. In response to a circular in 1960, the applicant submitted a representation claiming his DOB to be 3,11,1927. In support of this claim, he produced a certificate dated 12,3.1960 from a Primary Sehool. His representation was ultimately rejected by the DG/OF. on the grounds that if the applicant had declared his age aa claimed in his representation at the time of appointment, he would not have been entitled to payment at adult rates and further there could not have been such a wide disparity in the assessment of age by the Mecical Officer.
The Tribunel expressed the opinion that the DG/0.F.
had
Extract shown above; the full text is available in the search app.
All commercial matters circulars · Open this circular in the search app · Search all 7,826 documents