JUDGMENT
R.N. Prasad, J.
1. The petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.3.1992, Annexure-1, whereby representation of the petitioner for correction of date of birth has been rejected.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 1.1.57 as messenger in Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Company Ltd. The said company was taken over in the year 1975 and the petitioner became employee of Bihar State Electricity Board. In the Board service book of the petitioner was opened in the year 1987 which date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 1931. On the basis of date of birth entered in the service book the petitioner was made to retire with effect from 1.7.1991, Annexure-2. The petitioner filed an application on 5.9.1990 i.e. few months before retirement for correction of date of birth in the service book. The said petitioner was rejected vide Annexure-1. The petitioner has challenged Annexure-1 and also Annexure-2 on the ground that in the service record of Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Company Ltd., the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 1934. In support thereof, Annexures-3 & 6 have been annexed.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents wherein claim of the petitioner has been denied, stating therein that Annexures-3 & 6 were not made available by Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Company Ltd., at the time of taking over of the company. However, a register was handed over with regard to employees of the said company wherein date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 1931 and date of retirement was also mentioned. In the Board, service book of the petitioner was opened in the year 1987 in which date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned 1931 and the petitioner has signed the Service book and as such the claim of the petitioner is not fit to be allowed.
4. Learned Counsel for the parties reiterated the stand as has been taken in their pleadings. It is manifest from the submissions and material on record that claim of the petitioner is that his date of birth as mentioned in the service book of Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Company Ltd. has not been entered in the service book of the Board after taking over of the management. Annexure-3 is Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Declaration Form wherein date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 1934. The said date of birth was declared by the petitioner himself and it bears signature of the Manager of the Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Company Ltd. The said company was taken over In the year 1975. In serial No. 8 of Annexure-3 one Rekha Kumari has been mentioned whose date of birth has been mentioned as 1980. When the company was taken over in 1975 how such entry could be made by the erstwhile company. Therefore, the document becomes suspicious. Annexure-6 is service book of the petitioner which was opened in Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Company Ltd. In the said document date of birth has been mentioned as 1934 but similar entry has also been made in this service book. Therefore, document relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner i.e. Annexures-3 & 6 becomes suspicious and as such they cannot be relied upon. Learned Counsel for the respondents produced register of Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Company Ltd. in which names of the employees have been mentioned with their details. At serial No. 57 the name of the petitioners finds place in the register. His date of birth has been mentioned in the said register as 1931 and date of retirement has also been mentioned. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that except this document no service book of the petitioner or any employee was handed over by Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Company Ltd., to the Board in the year 1975 when it was taken over and on the basis of the same entry service book of the petitioner was opened in the year 1987 in the Board. The service book of the petitioner has also been produced by learned Counsel and from perusal of the same it appears that 1931 has been mentioned as date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner has also signed the service book. Thus it appears that the petitioner had knowledge about the date of birth mentioned in the service book in the year 1987. He did not raise objection in the year 1987 or before 1990. The petitioner raised objection with regard to entry of the date of birth in the service book and for correction in the month of September. 1990 i.e. few months prior of his retirement. It is evident that the Board has rule for it which has been mentioned in the order Annexure-1 whereby the petition for correction has been rejected. It has been stated that such petition was not filed within three years of and as such the same cannot be looked into and corrected. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan , the Apex Court has held that when the service book was opened and it was signed and counter signed by the authorities the date of entry mentioned in the same cannot be changed at the instance of employee at the fag and of his service. Therefore, on consideration as discussed above, I find that the documents relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner i.e. Annexures-3 & 6 prima-facie appear to be suspicious besides legal bar against such correction.
5. Thus I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, it is dismissed but without cost.
