Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 99 (PAT)

Baleshwar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2001-02-06

AFTAB ALAM

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and S.C.X appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The correct date of birth of the petitioner is the subject of controversy in this writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as a police constable on 11.2.1969 and was made to retire on 30.5.2000, taking his date of birth as 30.5.1942. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 30.5.1945 as is correctly shown in his matriculation certificate, issued by the Bihar School Examination Board on 1.10.1962 and on that basis the petitioner will attain the age of superannuation on 30.5.2003. 3. The facts of the case which appear from the writ petition, the counter affidavits and the petitioners service book produced by S.C.X in course of hearing of his case appear to be as follows. 4. It appears that at the time of his entry into service, his date of birth in the relevant column of the service book was entered in figures as 13.5.1942. Though the basis on which, this entry was made is not clear. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that taking 30.5.42 as his date of birth, the petitioner would have been over age as in the year 1969, the age limit for appointment as constable was 25 years only. 5. Be that as it may, from the service book, it appears that the date of birth was later changed to 1945 by over writing figure five on the earlier figure two. Presumably at the time of the change, the date was also written in words, in Hindi. At the point where the change was made there appears to be some signature but it is totally illegible. 6. The service book stood in that state when it was noticed that the original entry of 1942 was later changed to 1945 by over writing. The petitioner was then issued a letter dated 23.8.1999 intimating that his date of birth will be taken to be 1942 as originally recorded in the service book and on that basis he would retire from service on 30.5.2000. The petitioner then made a representation before the departmental authorities for correction of his date of birth as entered in the service book on the basis of his matriculation certificate. The petitioner then made a representation before the departmental authorities for correction of his date of birth as entered in the service book on the basis of his matriculation certificate. His representation was rejected by an order passed by the Director General on the sole ground that it was made beyond the period of ten years from the date of entering the service and was, therefore, much belated. The order rejecting the petitioners representation was communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Bihar, Patna by letter dated 5.12.2000, issued by the Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Patna. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent authorities, it is almost admitted that the date 30.5.42, which was originally entered in the petitioners service book as his date of birth was wrong. It is also admitted that his date of birth is shown as 30.5.1945 in the matriculation certificate, issued by the Bihar School Examination Board. It is further admitted that on verification, the Bihar School Examination Board certified that the petitioners date of birth was entered in its record as 30.5.1945. The only ground assigned for not taking 1945 as the year of the petitioners birth is that 30.5.1942 was originally entered in the service book and that no request for correction was made within ten years of appointment as provided under Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules Column-1 (sicvolume 1 ?). 8. In this regard the contention of the petitioner is that his date of birth was duly corrected within the stipulated period and he was all along under the impression that the authorities had accepted his date of birth as 30.5.1945. The problem arose because the signature made by the officer making the correction was illegible and the petitioners application for making correction in the service book was no longer traceable in the office. In those facts and circumstances, it was assumed that the correction was unauthorised and the petitioner was given a notice dated 22.8.94 intimating that he was to retire from service in the year 2000 taking 1942 as the year of his birth and it was then that he made a representation for correction of his date of birth in the service book. 9. 9. Thus the reason for making a delayed representation for correction of the date of birth is sufficiently made out and this Court is of opinion that the petitioners representation ought not to have been rejected on the ground that it was made belatedly. The decision of the respondents authorities, rejecting the petitioners representation for correction of his age is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Director General to re-examine the petitioners case on merits regardless of the fact that the request was made beyond the period of ten years from entering the service. It is expected that a final order on his case will be passed within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The payment of the salary etc. to the petitioner will abide by the final order passed by the Director General, Police on the question of his date of birth. 11. In the result this writ application is allowed with the aforesaid obervations and directions.