HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No : 4614 of 2003
Ram Lal Mehra
- V/s -
State of MP and others.
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rajesh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.S. Bisen, Govt. Advocate, for the respondents,
alongwith Shri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, representative
of the Department alongwith records.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.
ORDER
06/01/2011
Challenging the entries made with regard to date of birth of
the petitioner in the service records, this writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner.
2- In the year 2003, when this writ petition was filed,
petitioner was aggrieved by order-dated 17.6.2003 – Annexure P/4,
issued by the office of Respondent No.4, by which petitioner was
informed that his date of birth in the service records is ‘28.7.1941’ and
accordingly he shall retire on 31.7.2003. It is the case of the petitioner
that his date of birth is ‘28.7.1942’ and in support thereof he has
produced a Middle School passed Certificate – Annexure P/1, allegedly
issued on 16.5.1961, showing his date of birth as ‘28.7.1942’.
Contending that the date of birth of the petitioner is ‘28.7.1942’ and not
‘28.7.1941’ as claimed by the respondents, petitioner has filed this writ
petition. In support thereof, further document – Annexure P/3 is filed,
2
which is the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination,
conducted in the year 1969, in which date of birth of the petitioner is
shown as ‘28.7.1942’.
3- Respondents have filed a detailed reply and it is the case of
the respondents that in the service book of the petitioner, his date of birth
is shown as ‘28.7.1941’. The date of birth bears his signature and,
therefore, now at the fag end of his career when notice for retirement is
issued, the date of birth cannot be changed. Interalia contending that the
date of birth of the petitioner is recorded in accordance to the
requirement of the Service Rules, particularly Rule 84, of the M.P.
Financial Code, and after a period of five years from the date of entry
into service petitioner cannot claim correction of his date of birth,
respondents resist the claim of the petitioner.
4- Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this
Court for the purposes of verifying the entries made in the original
service records, directed the respondents to keep the original service
records present. Accordingly, respondents have today produced the
service book. A perusal of the service book of the petitioner indicates
that petitioner was appointed in the year 1960, as a Middle Trained
Teacher. In the service book, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown
as ‘28.7.1941’, the service book bears the thumb impression alongwith
his signatures and is counter signed by the Assistant District Inspector of
Schools, Bareilly, Bhopal. Even though in the first sheet of the service
book, the date of birth – ‘28.7.1941’ is mentioned after pasting a strip on
it, but on a perusal of the service book, apart from the first page of the
service book, date of birth of the petitioner is recorded in more than two
other places. The first is the family particulars of the petitioner and the
second his leave records maintained under the statutory leave rules. In
both these entries, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as
‘28.7.1941’.
5- Even though the original copy of the mark-sheet –
Annexure P/1, filed by the petitioner is not available in the service book,
a hand-written copy of the Higher Secondary School Certificate
3
Examination, 1969 is available on record, in which the date of birth of
the petitioner is shown as ‘28.7.1942’. However, this certificate is issued
to the petitioner after his appointment and, therefore, it cannot be relied
upon for the purpose of correcting the date of birth. It is seen from the
records that in more than two places, in the service book, the date of
birth of the petitioner is shown as ‘28.7.1941’ and they bear the
signature of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is not a fit case
where this Court now after so many years should interfere in the matter
and permit change of date of birth at the fag end of the career, when
notice for retirement is issued to the petitioner.
6- Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of State of UP and another Vs. Shiv Narain
Upadhyaya, (2005) 6 SCC 49, and the judgment rendered by a Division
Bench of this Court, in the case of Girish Nath Vs. Union of India,
2005(1) MPLJ 233, and the fact that the petitioner is seeking for
correction of his date of birth at the fag end of career, whereas his
signatures are available in the service book practically every year and
during the entire service period he has never sought for correction of his
date of birth, it is not a fit case where interference is warranted.
7- Accordingly, finding no merit in the claim made by the
petitioner warranting consideration, this petition is dismissed.
( RAJENDRA MENON )
JUDGE
Aks/-