Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 617 (PAT)

Shew Kumar Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-06-25

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.4.2003 (Annexure-4A) whereby the petitioner has been communicated that the date of birth mentioned in the service book on the basis of the matriculation certificate shall be recognized. Further prayer made by the petitioner is for payment of salary from June, 2000 to May 2002 and March and April, 2003. 2. It is the stand of the petitioner that in response to the advertisement made by the respondent-Barh Municipality he filed application for appointment and disclosed his date of birth as 1.5.1947. His further stand is that according to the advertisement the maximum age prescribed for appointment was 27 years and taking into account the declaration made by the petitioner i.e. the date of birth to be 1.5.1947 he was appointed to the post. However, in the matriculation certificate the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 1.5.1945 as also in the service book. According to the petitioner he filed application for correction of date birth on 1.6.1979 (Annexure-3A) and ultimately by the impugned order he has been informed that the entry of 1.5.1945 in the service book on the basis of the Matriculation certificate shall be recognised. Further grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the salary from June, 2000 to May, 2002 and March and April, 2003. 3. Mr. Agrawal appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioners date of birth is 1.5.1947 and the petitioner having placed the affidavit on record as also the horoscope in support thereof, respondents ought to have accepted 1.5.1947 as his date of birth. He also points out that in case the date of birth of the petitioner is reckoned as 1.5.1945 he would have crossed the upper age limit at the time of appointment and as such the respondents be directed to treat the petitioners date of birth as 1.5.1947. 4. It is well settled that entry in regard to the date of birth in the service book is of vital importance and cannot be corrected on flimsly ground. Here the date of birth of the petitioner in the matriculation certificate has been entered as 1.5.1945. In the service book also his date of birth has been entered as 1.5.1945. 4. It is well settled that entry in regard to the date of birth in the service book is of vital importance and cannot be corrected on flimsly ground. Here the date of birth of the petitioner in the matriculation certificate has been entered as 1.5.1945. In the service book also his date of birth has been entered as 1.5.1945. Even if I assume in favour of the petitioner that he crossed the upper age limit at the time of appointment that itself shall not entitle him for alteration of his date of birth which was duly recorded in the service book which is in conformity with the entry made in the matriculation certificate. I do not find any substance in this grievance of the petitioner. 5. As regards the grievance of the petitioner for non-payment of salary, I am of the opinion that the petitioner shall be well advised to approach his employer for payment of salary. Needless to state that in case such a representation is made, admissible dues of the petitioner shall be paid, in case it is found that the same has not been paid. Same shall be paid in accordance with law within four months from the date of filing of the representation. 6. Application stands dismissed with the direction aforesaid.