Rajesh Kumar Singh v. Union Of India & ANR

$~36.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6089/2017 RAJESH KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Shankar Divate, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Chiranjeev Kumar & Mr. Mukesh Sachdeva, Advocates for respondents No.1 & 2/ UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R

% 20.07.2017 C.M. No. 25276/2017 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6089/2017 3.

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.05.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 4273/2016. The Tribunal has dismissed the said Original Application of the petitioner, wherein he wanted that his date of birth be treated as 07.02.1967.

4.

The petitioner had preferred an earlier Original Application, i.e. O.A. No.4243/2010. In the said Original Application, on 11.08.2011, a consensual order was passed by the Tribunal that the petitioner's ossification test may be got conducted and whatever age of the petitioner is determined on the basis of the said test would be acceptable to him as well as by the respondent. Alternatively, the primary school leaving certificate, if any, available and received from the primary school at village Kuwar, District Badaue (U.P.) was to be got verified. The ossification test of the petitioner was conducted on 23.04.2012, and his age was determined as 55 years on the date of the examination. Consequently, his date of superannuation was fixed as 30.04.2017. This ossification test report was accepted by the petitioner and he did not assail the same contemporaneously. 5.

Subsequently, he preferred the aforesaid Original Application in the year 2016 only on the premise that in respect of two other casual employees, their date of birth had been fixed on the basis of their personal affidavits supported by other documents, such as PAN Card, Aadhaar Card, Voters List, etc. The Tribunal has not found any merit in the said application and dismissed the same.

6.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, is that his school leaving certificate was not got verified. The petitioner has not detailed as to what steps were taken by him to procure the school leaving certificate from the primary school concerned. He also did not raise any grievance in that respect contemporaneously. Instead, he accepted the report of the ossification test done on 23.04.2012. He is, therefore, estopped from now raising a grievance with regard to the alleged non-verification of his

school leaving certificate.

7.

The submission of the petitioner that the age of the other casual employees was determined on the basis of their own declarations and documents, such as PAN Card, Aadhaar Card, Voters List, etc., is of no avail. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he had accepted the position that he would go by his ossification test report.

8.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly rejected the Original Application of the petitioner.

9.

Dismissed.

VIPIN SANGHI, J REKHA PALLI, J JULY 20, 2017 B.S. Rohella