Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1326 (MP)

Rampal Singh Goutam v. State of M. P.

2011-11-22

SUJOY PAUL

body2011
ORDER Sujoy Paul, J. 1. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under: 2. The petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 16/08/2004, whereby it is informed that he will attain the age of superannuation on 31/01/2005. 3. Shri B.D. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15/07/1945 and not 15/01/1945, which can be seen from Annexure-P/2 and the concerned register Annexure-P/4. He fairly submits that in the scholar register and transfer register (Annexure-P/4) in numerical, it is erroneously mentioned as 15/01/1945, but it is rightly mentioned in the words as 15th July, 1945. On the strength of this, he submits that his date of birth is 15/07/1945 and respondents have committed an error in rejecting his representation Annexure-P/7. He submits that it is a clerical error, which can be corrected at any point of time. He relied on 2011 (9) SCC 664 . 4. Per contra, Ms. Patankar, learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner, who is in his entire career never challenged his date of birth and cannot be permitted to raise such objections at the fag end of his career i.e. at the time of retirement. She further submits that Annexure-R/1 is the copy of the first page of the service book, which contains the date of birth of the petitioner as 15/01/1945 and on the bottom of this document, petitioner himself has certified that his date of birth is 15/07/1945 and put his signatures on 07/02/1995. 5. Shri Jain submits that this handwriting and signatures must have been obtained by the superior officers under the coerce and pressure, therefore he submits that Annexure-P/2 contains correct date of birth and it should be accepted. 6. The question involved in this matter is no more res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162 held that if an employee failed to get his date of birth corrected within the reasonable time, even if there is solid evidence in his favour, the same shall not be changed at the fag end of his career. I am not able to accept the arguments of Shri Jain that the certification Annexure-R/1 by the petitioner is obtained under the coerce, threat or pressure. I am not able to accept the arguments of Shri Jain that the certification Annexure-R/1 by the petitioner is obtained under the coerce, threat or pressure. In that eventuality, petitioner, at the relevant point of time could have preferred his objections before the higher authorities. Once, the date of birth recorded in the service book as 15/01/1945 without there being any iota of doubt or overwriting on it, it cannot be said to be a clerical error. The date of birth, which is recorded in the service book has attained a finality and cannot be altered even on production of a very valid document at the fag end of his career. In Harnam Singh's case (supra), reads as under:- 7....A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. 7. The ratio decidendi of Harnam Singh's case (supra) consistency followed by Supreme Court in 2003 (6) 483 : 2007 (1) M.P.L.J. 286 : 1994 (6) SCC 302 : AIR 06 S.C.W. 3687. Apart from this, while rejecting the petitioner's representation for correction of date of birth, the respondents have assigned certain reasons and stated that petitioner never produced his marks-sheet before the department. Petitioner has not chosen to challenge the correctness of Annexure-P/7. For this reason also, I find no justification to interfere in the matter. The judgment cited by Shri B.D. Jain that 2011 (9) 664 does not help the petitioner in the peculiar fact situation in the present case. The ratio is not that a sleeping litigation at the fag end of or in December of his career can be permitted to raise his objection on the validity of the recorded date of birth. 8. Result is inevitable. Petition is bereft of merit and substance and is hereby dismissed. No costs.