NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1615 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2389 of 2008)
R. K. Jangra ..........Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and Others ........Respondent
ORDER
H.L. Dattu,J.
Leave granted.
1)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 1333
of 2007 dated 29.1.2007. By the impugned order, the High Court has
directed the appellant to approach the civil court for correction of his
date of birth in the service records.
2)The facts in brief are:- the appellant, R. K. Jangra, when he joined
service as Additional Design Engineer with respondent No.2 on
1
11.1.1980, he had produced his Higher Secondary Part-I examination
certificate dated 19.7.1969 as the proof for his date of birth. In the said
certificate his date of birth was shown as 4.1.1952. The appellant within
two years of his joining service, had made an application for change of
his date of birth from 4.1.1952 to 3.1.1953 before the Additional District
Registrar, Births & Deaths, Jalandhar, by stating that his mother was
illiterate and she had given the wrong date of birth while seeking his
admission in the Primary School. The Additional Registrar had obliged
the appellant by issuing a birth certificate showing the date of birth as
3.1.1953 vide his order dated 19.5.1981. The appellant armed with the
said certificate had made a representation before his employer for
correction of his date of birth in his service record.
3)Since the request in the representation did not yield any result, the
appellant once again made a detailed representation to respondent No.2
for the same relief. This representation was answered by respondent no.
2, by directing the appellant to get the correction of date of birth done in
the Matriculation Certificate from the Registrar of Punjab University.
The request made in this regard is rejected by the Registrar of Punjab
University by informing the appellant, that, the application filed is
beyond the time limit prescribed in the regulations of the University.
2
4)The Government of Punjab by its order dated 21.6.1994 amended the
Punjab Civil Service Rules and in that had provided, that, employees
who are already in the service of Government of Punjab may apply for
change of date of birth within a period of 2 years from coming into force
of the said Rules before the competent authority. The request made
pursuant to the aforesaid rules, is rejected by the Registrar of Punjab
University, by informing the appellant that the application filed by him is
beyond the time limit prescribed in the university regulations. Not being
satisfied with the endorsement so issued, the appellant once again by his
representation dated 20.9.1995, made a request before the State
Government for correction of his date of birth. The State Government
vide its letter dated 18.12.1995 had rejected the claim of the appellant.
The appellant again made several representation before various
authorities. All these authorities had asked appellant to furnish sufficient
records/evidence to act upon his request made in his representation. In
spite of supplying all the information asked, since no action was taken,
the appellant filed a writ petition before the Punjab High Court praying
for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the
respondents to make appropriate correction of his date of birth in the
service records of the appellant.
3
5)The High Court without going into the merits of the case rejected the
petition by its impugned order dated 29.1.2007. The High Court has
observed:-
“It will be just and appropriate to relegate the appellant to
avail his ordinary remedy before a Civil Court. Aggrieved
by the said order, appellant is before us by this special leave
petition.”
6)We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7)Appellant, in spite of his attempts right from the year 1981, has failed
to come out of the perplexing web of the bureaucracy. Appellant who is
due to retire in January 2010 is praying for another extra year of service.
He has made several representations in this regard without getting any
results. At this juncture he only wants his representation being
considered in proper perspective and in accordance with law and to give
him one more year of extension of service by making appropriate
correction of his date of birth in the service records.
8)In view of the above discussion, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances, we direct the competent authority/Principal Secretary,
Department of Irrigation, Punjab, Chandigarh to consider the
representation filed by the appellant on 8.5.1987, in the light of
4
documents and material produced by him, within a month from the date
of this order, if the representation made by the appellant is available with
the respondent untrammeled by any of the observations made in the
earlier orders. If such representation is not available in their records, the
competent authority will call upon the appellant to file a fresh
representation with all the particulars required and consider the same
within a reasonable time.
9) In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
order passed by the High Court is set aside. No order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE]
…………………………………J.
[ H.L. DATTU ]
New Delhi,
March 16, 2009.
5