Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 171 (MP)

Surijbal Soni v. State Of M. P.

2012-02-07

R.S.JHA

body2012
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent authorities have superannuated the petitioner from service as a Gang Labour with effect from 31-8-2009 by treating his date of birth to be 1-9-1947 contrary to law, as the certificate issued by the Government Primary School, Khutha and the mark sheet issued by the Hellen Kaller High School for the Blind, Indore clearly indicate that the petitioner's date of birth is in fact 10-7-1954. ( 2. ) THE brief faces, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Gang Labour on 28-3-1983. While entering into service, his service book was prepared in which his date of birth has been recorded as 1-9-1947 on the information given by the petitioner himself. It is stated that subsequently the petitioner, after obtaining his mark sheet from Hellen Kaller High School for the Blind, Indore and Government Primary School Khutha, District Satna, approached the authorities in the year 1994 for change of his date of birth which fact is very specifically and categorically denied by the respondents. It is stated that in the year 2007, the matter was again clarified by Principal of the Hellen Kaller High School for the Blind stating that the petitioner's date of birth was 10-7-1954 and on that count the petitioner again requested for change of his date of birth by filing representations on 23-12-2006, 23-8-2007 and 25-6-2009. However, the respondent authorities without making any correction in the date of birth, superannuated the petitioner with effect from 31-8-2009. Being aggrieved by which, the petitioner has filed the present petition. ( 3. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner, recorded in the mark sheet issued by the Hellen Kaller High School for the Blind, Indore issued on 15-12-1997 is 10-7-1954. Similarly, the certificate issued by the Principal of Government Primary School, Khudhan also records the date of birth of the petitioner to be 10-7-1954 and in such circumstances, in view of the certificates issued by the relevant schools, the petitioner's service record be corrected and the petitioner be permitted to continue in service till the age of 62 years treating his date of birth as 10-7-1954. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Agrawal vs. State of M. P. and others, 2012(1) MPLJ 153 , in support of his submissions. ( 4. ) THE respondents, per contra, have filed a return and submit that the date of birth recorded in the petitioner's service record since the very beginning is 1-9-1947. THEreafter, the petitioner for the first time approached the respondent authorities in the year 2007 for correction of his date of birth on the basis of the certificates issued by the Hellen Kaller High School for the Blind, Indore and Government Primary School, Khutha. It is stated that the representation of the petitioner was forwarded to the Treasury Officer for making appropriate correction in his service book, which was sent back to the respondent authorities with a note that the Treasury Officer had no power or authority to correct the date of birth. ( 5. ) THE learned Government Advocate, relying upon the provisions of Rule 84 of the M. P. Financial Code, submits that the correction of the petitioner's date of birth at the fag end of his service is not permissible and the date of birth as recorded in the service book is final and conclusive and is subject to change only in case of a clerical error or mistake. THE learned Government Advocate relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 , submits that the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. ( 6. ) THIS Court had directed the respondents to produce the service book and the record of the petitioner relating to the decision taken by them on the representation filed by the petitioner, which have been produced before this court and has been scrutinized by the Court as well as by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 7. ) FROM the perusal of the record, it is clear that the date of birth recorded in the petitioner's service record is 1-9-1947. ( 7. ) FROM the perusal of the record, it is clear that the date of birth recorded in the petitioner's service record is 1-9-1947. It is also clear that the petitioner, for the first time, approached the respondent authorities for correction of his date of birth in the year 2007 on the strength of the certificates issued by the Hellen Kaller High School for the Blind, Indore and Government Primary School, Khutha, which was verified by the authorities and thereafter forwarded to the Treasury Officer for making appropriate correction, which was returned back to the authorities by the Treasury Officer clearly referring to Rule 84 and 85 of the M. P. Financial Code and stating therein that the change of date of birth in the service record was beyond the authority of the Treasury Officer. ( 8. ) THE provisions of Rule 84 of the M. P. Financial Code is in the following terms:- "Rule 84: Every person newly appointed to a service or a post under the Government should at the time of the appointment declare the date of his birth by the Christian era with as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence such as a matriculation certificate, municipal birth certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known, an approximate date may be given. THE actual date or the assumed date determined under Rule 85 should be recorded in the history of service; Service book or any other record that may be kept in respect of the Government servant's service under the Government. THE date of birth, once recorded in this manner, must be deemed to be absolutely conclusive, and except in the case of a clerical error no revision of such a declaration shall be allowed to be made at a later period for any purpose whatever." ( 9. ) A bare reading of the aforesaid rule makes it clear that the date of birth recorded in the service record at the time of entry in the service is final and conclusive except in the case of a clerical error, which may be corrected at a later period. ( 10. ) A bare reading of the aforesaid rule makes it clear that the date of birth recorded in the service record at the time of entry in the service is final and conclusive except in the case of a clerical error, which may be corrected at a later period. ( 10. ) IT is also clear that in the case where the High Court had directed correction of the date of birth on the strength of certificates after 25 years of service, the Supreme Court in the case of Premlal Shrivas (supra) while setting aside the order passed by the High Court and referring to Rule 84 of the M. P.Financial Code, has held as under :- "14. IT is manifest from a bare reading of Rule 84 of the M. P. Financial Code that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding on the government servant. IT is clear that the said Rule has been make in order to limit the scope of correction of date of birth in the service record. However, an exception has been carved out in the Rule, permitting the public servant to request later for correcting his age provided that incorrect recording of his age is on account of a clerical error or mistake. This is a salutory rule, which was, perhaps, inserted with a view to safeguard the interest of employees so that they do not suffer because of the mistakes committed by the official staff. Obviously, only that clerical error or mistake would fall within the ambit of the said Rule which is caused due to the negligence or want of proper care on the part of some person other than the employee seeking correction. Onus is on the employee concerned to prove such negligence. 15. In Commr. of Police vs. Bhagwan V. Lahane, (1997) 2 SCC 247, this Court has held that for an employee seeking the correction of his date of birth, it is a condition precedent that he must show, that the incorrect recording of the date of birth was made due to negligence of some other person, or that the same was an obvious clerical error failing which the relief should not be granted to him. 16. 16. Again, in Union of India vs. C. Rama Swamy, (1997) 4 SCC 647 , it has been observed that a bona fide error would normally be one where an officer has indicated a particular date of birth in his application form or any other document at the time of his employment but, by mistake or oversight a different date has been recorded. 17. As aforesaid, in the instant case, no evidence has been placed on record by the respondent to show that the date of birth recorded as 1st June, 1942 was due to the negligence of some other person. He had failed to show that the date of birth was recorded incorrectly, due to want of care on the part of some other person, despite the fact that a correct date of birth had been shown on the documents presented or signed by him. We hold that in this fact situation the High Court ought not to have directed the appellants to correct the date of birth of the respondent under Rule 84 of the said Rules. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the decision of the High Court, holding that the respondent was entitled to get his date of birth corrected in the service record, cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside, leaving the parties to bear their own costs throughout." ( 11. ) IN the instant case, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1-9-1947 at the time of entry into service on the information given by the petitioner himself. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the date of birth, recorded by the authorities at the time of entry into service on the information given by the petitioner requires to be corrected as there is some apparent clerical error, negligence, mistake or oversight in recording the date of birth. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the date of birth, recorded by the authorities at the time of entry into service on the information given by the petitioner requires to be corrected as there is some apparent clerical error, negligence, mistake or oversight in recording the date of birth. On the contrary, the facts of the case clearly indicate that the petitioner, for the first time, approached the respondent authorities at the fag end of his service for correction of his date of birth in the year 2007 on the strength of certificates issued subsequent to his entry in service in the year 1983 which is not permissible in view of the provisions of Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Premlal Shrivas (supra). ( 12. ) IT is to be noted that the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Laxmi Narayan Agrawal (supra), relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the instant case. The facts of that case indicate that it was the employer himself who had sought verification and correction of the date of birth and not the employee. That apart, in view of the clear binding decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Premlal Shrivas (supra) and in view of the provisions of Rule 84 of the M. P. Financial Code, I find no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. ( 13. ) IN the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to the costs. Petition dismissed.