JUDGMENT
Arun Madan, J.
1. The short question which arises for consideration of this court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is as to what should be the authentic proof for determining the correct date of birth of an employee : of the State Government or of any corporate body functioning on behalf of the State Government which should be a relevant factor of an employee at the time of his appointment. The date of retirement on attaining the age of super- ] annuation by an employee is also to be reckoned from that date.
2. The petitioner who is an erstwhile employee of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this petition on the ground interalia that the petitioner initially joined the service of the State Government on the post of Lower Division Clerk (for short ‘LDC’) in Village Panchayat Department vide order, dated; August 10, 1953 and was posted in their Divisional Office at Kota. In continuation of the said appointment and while discharging his duties as substantive Upper Division Clerk (for short ‘UDC’) in the erstwhile Roadways Department, the State Government placed the services of the petitioner on deputation to the respondents w.e.f. October 1, 1964 and these arrangements continued till October 30, 1966. It has further been contended that during the intervening period of deputation the State Government vide its Notification dated April 15, 1966 invited option from the petitioner either to remain in Government service of the State or to continue to serve the Corporation as he may deem fit. The petitioner in pursuance of the option notice with reference to para 4 of the terms and conditions of the option, and with particular reference to Regulation 7(a) of the R.S.R.T.C. Regulations, 1965, submitted his option within the stipulated period exercising his option in favour of continuity of his services with the Corporation. Consequently the State Government vide its order, dated June 30, 1966 transferred the services of the petitioner to the said Corporation and the Corporation vide its letter, dated July 15, 1967 also accepted the said transfer with a specific mention that the services of the petitioner henceforth will he governed by R.S.R.T.C. Employees Service Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) which came into force w.e.f. August 15, 1965. Consequently the-services of the peti- ; tioner in the State Government were brought to an end w.e.f. October 30, 1966.
3. It will be pertinent to refer to Regulation 7of the Regulations which reads as under:
“7. Unless there be something repugnant in
the subject or context the terms defined in
this chapter are used in the Regulations in
the sense here explained:-
(1) Age-(a) For the purposes of these Regulations age shall be computed from the date of birth of an employee, who shall be required to produce authentic proof thereof at the time of his employment or within three months from the date of his employment.
(b) The following proofs may be accepted as authentic date of birth in order of prefer-ence:-
(i) date of birth given in the School Certificate.
(ii) date of birth given in the Municipal Birth Certificate.
(iii) date of birth given in the horoscope provided it was prepared soon after the date of birth stated by the employees.
(c) If an employee is unable to state his exact date of birth but can state the year, or year and the month of birth, July 1, or the 16th day of the month respectively may be treated as the date of birth.
(d) If an employee is unable to state even the year of birth, a certificate from a Medical Officer approved by the Corporation specifying the approximate year may be accepted for the purposes of computing age.
(e) When an employee is required to retire on attaining a specified age the day on which he attains that age is reckoned as non- working day, and he must retire with effect from and including that day.”
4. It will also be relevant to refer to the con-litions of the above notice which are as under: –
(1) Any permanent employee of the State Government who is either directly appointed with RSRTC or who has been selected for appointment by the Corporation shall cease to be an employee of the service of the Corporation.
2) After his appointment an employee of the State Govt. who has been absorbed in the service of the RSRTC shall be governed by the service Rules of the Corporation. He shall be provided with the copy of the service Rules of the Corporation so as to be apprised of the terms of the service in the Corporation.
5. The petitioner has further contended that in pursuance of para 4 of the terms and condi-tions of option notice as aforesaid and after carefully having read the Regulations with a particular reference to Regulation 7(a), the petitioner submitted his option within the stipulated period with the Corporation on May 12, 1966. Consequently the State Government vide its order, dated June 30, 1966 transferred the services of the petitioner to the Corporation and the Corporation vide its order, dated July 15, 1967 also accepted the said transfer with a specific mention that the services of the petitioner henceforth will be governed by the Regulations of the Corporation w.e.f. August 15, 1965 which came into force w.e.f. August 15, 1965 although the petitioner has ceased to be an employee of the State Government w.e.f. July 15, 1967, i. e., the date of acceptance of the services of the petitioner by the Corporation.
6. It has been contended that soon after joining the service of the Corporation, the petitioner represented to the Corporation for change of his date of birth as the same had been incorrectly recorded in the service records as January 13, 1934 instead of September 13, 1934. As a result of this incorrect entry in the service record of the petitioner, he was made to retire prematurely on January 31, 1992 instead of September 31, 1992. An inquiry was initiated into the matter but with no results. The petitioner again represented for change in the date of birth on May 26, 1979 and the Additional General Manager (P) of the Corporation vide his letter dated December 21, 1979 informed the petitioner that as per the Govt. Notification dated January 24, 1979 it was not possible to change the date of birth in service book because in the Matriculation Certificate furnished by the petitioner the date of birth has been mentioned as January 13, 1934.
7. The petitioner has further contended that inspite of the aforesaid representations the respondent Corporation did not communicate its decision to the petitioner and had arbitrarily verified the date of birth of the petitioner from the service records as January 13, 1934 in his service book. That on the basis of incorrect entry in the service book of the petitioner, i.e., January 13, 1934, the petitioner was made to retire from service of the Corporation on January 31, 1992 as General Manager, Law and Secretary to the Board and was prematurely retired from service since he was eligible to continue in service upto September 30, 1992, i.e., 8 months prior to his attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has sought a direction from this Court for reinstatement in service on the post of General Manager, Law and Secretary to the Board which he held on January 31, 1992 and has further sought a direction that the intervening period i.e., February 1, 1992 to date be taken as the period spent on duty and has further sought the payment of full salary emoluments and all consequential benefits pertaining to pay etc.
8. The above contentions of the petitioner have been controverted by the respondents on the grounds interalia that the date of birth which has been mentioned by the petitioner on the basis of Middle School Certificate is not authentic and correct, since the authentic proof of date of birth which has always been accepted as correct is the Matriculation Certificate and not the Middle School Certificate. In the Matriculation Certificate the correct date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as January 13, 1934, whereas in the Middle School Certificate it is mentioned as September 13, 1934. The petitioner was initially appointed by the State Government on the basis of High School Certificate in which his date of birth was shown as January 13, 1934. It has further been contended that if the petitioner was having any grievance against incorrect recording of his date of birth in the service book he should have raised this grievance at the very outset of his initial appointment but instead he chose to remain silent and raised this grievance after having joined the services of the Corporation, at the time of joining the service with the State Government on the post of LDC on August 10, 1953, the petitioner had submitted his High School Certificate in which the date of birth is shown as January 13, 1934. It is thereafter that the petitioner’s services were transferred to the respondent Corporation and earlier he was treated as on deputation and an option was invited from the petitioner as to whether he would like to remain with the Corporation or to revert back to the State Government and the petitioner exercised his option for his continuity in service with the Corporation. The records from the State Government were called for and in the said records the date of birth of the petitioner which was shown as January 13, 1934 continued to be the same with the Corporation and hence there was no change in the records of the Corporation and even in pursuance of Regulation 7(a) of the Regulations an authentic proof of date of birth is the High School Certificate which is always accepted as authentic version with regard to the proof of age at the time of his appointment. As per Regulation 7(a) of the Regulations it has to be submitted within three months of the date of joining the employment. It is only when the said proof is not available, then the employee concerned may be required to furnish alternative proof such as Municipal Birth Certificate, horoscope, certificate from the Medical Officer of the Corpo-ration etc. as per the said Regulations.
9. I have examined this Rule with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit on account of date of birth, since the date of birth of the petitioner
which has been correctly recorded in the service book of the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment as LDC on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate obtained from the Board of Secondary Education; Madhya Pradesh of the year 1952 is January 13, 1934 which is the correct date of birth. In accordance with the said Certificate the petitioner has been correctly retired from the services of the Corporation on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., January 31, 1992 and hence he was not eligible to continue in service upto September 30, 1992 as so contended by the petitioner. Hence it is not a case of premature retirement of the petitioner from service of the Corporation but the petitioner has been rightly made to retire after having attained the age of superannuation, i.e., January 31, 1992, hence it cannot be said that the retirement of the petitioner was directed by the Corporation contrary to Regulation 7(1) (b) of the Regulations as so contended by the petitioner according to which the authentic proof which may be accepted by the employer as on the date of joining the service is the date of birth given in the Matriculation Certificate.
10. I am fortified in my observations from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Collector of Madras and Anr. v. K. Rajamanickam (1995-II- LLJ-677), wherein on the basis of recorded date of birth, the respondent was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on January 31, 1993 which he had disputed. The State Administrative Tribunal allowed his claim and under threats of contempt proceedings, the department was compelled to reinstate petitioner on February 7, 1994. The Tribunal’s order was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court had examined all the records, found that the Tribunal’s order was passed on improper evidence. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal of the department held that it was not open to the Respondent to challenge the date of birth which was recorded in the service records at the time of joining the service, since it was not open to the employee to have challenged the same at a belated stage either on the basis of horoscope evidence or oral submissions which were held unbelievable. In the matter of S.S. Sandhu v. Union of India 1983 SLJ 475 (Delhi), the High Court observed as under:
“Onus would fall heavily on anyone who wanted to say that the date of birth entered in the Matriculation Certificate was wrong.”
The High Court accordingly rejected the petitioner’s contention who had challenged the date of birth which was correctly recorded by the department on the ground that the authentic evidence with regard to the proof of age was what was recorded in the Matriculation Certificate. Likewise in the matter of Devidas Banerji v. Bank of India 1991 (4) SLR 590 (Cal), the High Court held as under:-
“Unless there is cogent reason to reject the Matriculation Certificate, it would ordinarily be accepted as reflecting correct date of birth.”
Likewise in the matter of R. S. Mittal v. Union of India and Ors. 1992 WLR 83 (Raj), it was held that “there is presumption of correctness of an entry as to the date of birth in Matriculation Certificate and the service book and this presumption must be rebutted by reliable and unimpeachable evidence failing which the existing entry is presumed to be correct and cannot be altered.”
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the relevant documents on the record. I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be rejected. The petitioner has failed to furnish any cogent and reliable evidence with a view to challenge the date of birth which has been correctly recorded in the service record of the petitioner which he had himself submitted at the time of joining his service earlier with the State Government as LDC and subsequently with the Corporation respondent, the respondents have not committed any illegality in retiring the petitioner on his attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. January 31, 1992 which was absolutely in accordance with the Regulations. Since the petitioner has challenged the intended date of his retirement on the ground that he has been prematurely retired, the presumption to rebut the same by reliable and unimpeachable evidence was heavily on the petitioner and since he has failed to rebut that presumption, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be rejected.
12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.