Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 214 (HP)

SHIV LAL SHARMA v. STATE OF H. P.

2006-08-01

M.R.VERMA

body2006
JUDGEMENT Mr. Verma J. (Retd.) Chairman.: The applicants herein prays for| directions to the respondents to correct his date of birth in his service records from j 12.5.1946 to 14.5.1947 and grant him such relief as he is found entitled. 2. Case of the applicant, an employee in the Education department is that in May/June 1993 when he was posted as a teacher in Govt. Middle, School Chambi where he got his primary education, while sorting out the old records alongwith other staff members came across his own school record and found that this date of birth was 12.5.1947 and not 12.5.1946 as shown in the service records. He checked up with the concerned Gram Panchayat and found that his date of birth as per the Panchayat record was 12.5.1947. The applicant claims that the discrepancy in his date of birth appears to have crept in due to clerical error committed at the time of his admission in VI class in Govt. High School, Sundernagar where his date of birth was incorporated as 12.5.1946 instead of 12.5.1947. The applicant, therefore, made representation Annexure PF dated 17.7.1993 where upon he was asked by the BPEO to first get his date of birth corrected in his matriculation certificate. The applicant accordingly represented to the Registrar Punjab University vide Annexure PH dated 20.9.1993 which was not accepted by the University on the ground that it has decided not to entertain application for correction of date of birth after 31.1.1987. The applicant brought it to the notice of D.E.O. and as a consequence the applicant was asked to furnish school leaving certificate of Govt. Primary School, Chambi vide Annexure PK which he furnished. However, finally he was informed that his representation Annexure PF had been rejected Aggrieved by the rejection of Annexure PF the applicant has field this original application on the ground that rejection of his representation is arbitrary, discriminatory and again the principles of natural justice. To substantiate his claim, the applicant placed on record copy of the school leaving certificate Annexure PB copy of pariwar register Annexure PC, Matriculation certificate Annexure PE and the copies of Correspondence referred to herein above. 3. To substantiate his claim, the applicant placed on record copy of the school leaving certificate Annexure PB copy of pariwar register Annexure PC, Matriculation certificate Annexure PE and the copies of Correspondence referred to herein above. 3. The respondent No.1 to 3 filed reply and contested the claim of the applicant on the grounds that the correction of date of birth was being sought by the applicant after more than 31 years of service and at the fag end of his service and that as per the rules such representation ought to have been made within two years of entry into service failing which date of birth declared at the time of entry into service will be deemed to be correct. Therefore, the request of the applicant who slept over the mater for more than 31 years could not be and cannot be allowed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Dy. Advocate General for the contesting respondents and have perused the material placed on record. 5.As per the contents of the school leaving certificate Annexure PB issued I by the Headmaster, Middle School, Chambi and the certificate Annexure PC issued under the Birth and Death Registration Act 1969 the date of birth of the applicant is 12.5.1947. However as per the school leaving certificate Annexure PD issued from the Govt. Senior Secondary School, Sunder Nagar where the applicant got admission after leaving Govt. Primary School, Chambi as it then was and matriculation certificate Annexure PE his date of birth is 12.5.1946. It is in disputable that the entries regarding admission of the applicant in. the records of Govt./ Senior Secondary School . Sundernagar were to be made and in the absence of anything to the contrary are presumed to have been made on the basis of Annexure PB though his date of birth therein has not been correctly recorded as per the entries in Annexure PB. Admittedly, at the relevant time the applicant was minor, therefore, in the absence of any reliable material to support recording of the date of birth as 12.5.1946 contrary to the entry in Annexure PB is an omission on the part of the school official (s) and not attributable to the applicant. Admittedly, at the relevant time the applicant was minor, therefore, in the absence of any reliable material to support recording of the date of birth as 12.5.1946 contrary to the entry in Annexure PB is an omission on the part of the school official (s) and not attributable to the applicant. In case such official(s) had any reliable material to change the date of birth as recorded in Annexure PB it was for the respondents to plead and produce the same as such record must be in their possession. The respondents however did not produce or pleaded anything to justify the recording of date of birth of the applicant as 12.5.1946 instead of 12.5.1947. When such an omission occurred because of the officials of the respondents working in the concerned Govt. Senior Secondary School, the applicant cannot be made to suffer. 6. The applicant represented for correction of his date of birth after about 31 years after the joining of the service, not within two years of entry into service. However it cannot be lost sight of that the applicant came to know about the wrong entry qua his date of birth in May/June 1993. After ascertaining facts he represented to the respondents without any delay. Evidently he could not seek relief within two years of his entry into service in the year 1964 when he came to know about the cause of action in the year 1993. 7. The plea of the respondents that the representation was made by the applicant at the fag end of his service is also not sustainable being contrary to the factual position. It is not in dispute that even on the basis of entries in his service record the applicant was to retire on 31.5.2004 whereas he had represented for correction of his date of birth vide Annexure PA on 24.5.1994 that is more than 10 years before his attaining the age of superannuation. 8. The above discussion leads me to the conclusion that the claim of the applicant is fully substantiated in view of the unquestioned and unrebutted entries of his date of birth in Annexure PB and PC and there is no lawful excuse to deny him the relief. 8. The above discussion leads me to the conclusion that the claim of the applicant is fully substantiated in view of the unquestioned and unrebutted entries of his date of birth in Annexure PB and PC and there is no lawful excuse to deny him the relief. As a result, this original application is allowed and the respondents are directed to correct and substitute the date of birth of the applicant as 12.5.1947 and give him all the consequential service benefits. No order as to costs.