Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 30 (MP)

Ram Lal Mehra v. State of M. P.

2011-01-06

RAJENDRA MENON

body2011
ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. 1. 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. 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 Anr. 6. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP and Anr. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (2005) 6 SCC 49 , and the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Girish Nath v. 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.