Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 902 (HP)

Dharampal v. Union of India

2012-11-30

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2012
Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The petitioner herein has claimed the following relief in this writ petition: - “i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Order dated 27.4.2009 (Annexure P-7 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been ordered to retire w.e.f. 31.5.2009 deeming his date of birth to be 28.05.1951 which is against the records; ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order direction directing respondent-management to correct the date of birth of the petitioner to be 28.05.1952 instead of 28.05.1951 mentioned inadvertently in the service book.” 2. As per the undisputed facts the petitioner initially was appointed as Jack Hammer Operator on 1.1.1976 by 2nd respondent-corporation in its project at Rajban, District Sirmour. Subsequently, he was promoted as Heavy Equipment Operator. The age of superannuation of an employee of the 2nd respondent Corporation is 58 years. The dispute, however, is with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. While he claims his date of birth as 28.5.1952, the respondent in complete denial thereto submits that his date of birth as he himself disclosed at the time of his entry in service is 28.5.1951 and recorded so in the service book of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner in order to substantiate his claim has pressed into service Annexure P-1 abstract of Register of employees maintained under the statutory provisions of Mines Act allegedly pertaining to the year 1976, copy of his PAN Card Annexure P-2, copy of identity card Annexure P-3, copy of driving licence Annexure P-4 and also copy of the date of birth certificate Annexure P-5. It is worthwhile to mention here that qua these documents, the date of birth of the petitioner finds entered as 28.5.1952. He allegedly made available his birth certificate to the respondent in the year 2002 and made a request for correction of his date of birth. The request so made was followed by his representation dated 29.1.2009 annexure P-6, but of no avail and to the contrary vide office order dated 27.4.2009, Annexure P-7 his date of retirement has been notified as 31.5.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. No action has even been taken on the legal notice Annexure P-8 served upon the respondents. 4. No action has even been taken on the legal notice Annexure P-8 served upon the respondents. 4. The following legal questions have been brought to this Court in this writ petition for adjudication:- “(i) Whether the impugned order Annexure P-7 is erroneous in view of annexure P-1 to P-5? (ii) Whether the impugned order Annexure P-7 is arbitrary and thus in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? (iii) Whether the impugned order Annexure P-7 is arbitrary and against the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Mohd. Yunus Khan versus U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Others’ decided on 22.08.2008 in Civil Appeal No.6191 of 2008? 5. In the reply to the writ petition, the stand taken by the respondent in a nut shell is that it is the petitioner, who himself declared his date of birth as 28.5.1951 while furnishing his personal particulars for making entries thereof in his service book. Also that at the time of his medical examination not only he declared his age as 24 years of age before the medical officer but in the opinion of the medical officer he by way of appearance was of 24 years at that time. The application form for police verification also contains his date of birth as 28.5.1951. In the form he submitted for allotment of National Social Security Number in accordance with the instructions circulated in the year 2005 he declared his date of birth as 28.5.1951. The documents Annexures R-2/a to R-2/4, which contain his date of birth as 28.5.1951 and duly signed by him have been pressed into service in this behalf. 6. As regards his date of birth recorded as 28.5.1952 in the Register of employees maintained under the Mines Act Annexure P-1/R-2/5, it is submitted that such register is being maintained under Section 48 of the Mines Act and personal particulars including the date of birth etc are being supplied by the employee concerned. For issuance of PAN Card and Identity Card again the personal particulars are being furnished by the individual concerned. The form annexure R-2/7, the petitioner had filled up for issuance of Identity Card, it is he who himself had declared his date of birth as 28.5.1952. For issuance of PAN Card and Identity Card again the personal particulars are being furnished by the individual concerned. The form annexure R-2/7, the petitioner had filled up for issuance of Identity Card, it is he who himself had declared his date of birth as 28.5.1952. So far as the driving licence and birth certificate produced by the petitioner are concerned, the respondents have made no comment for want of knowledge. It is, however, pointed out that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act came into force in the year 1969, therefore, his date of birth could not have been recorded in such a register at the time of his birth being not maintained at that time. The submission of representation Annexure P-6 (Annexure R-2/8 with reply) has been admitted and it is submitted that the same was duly considered, however, rejected vide communication Annexure R-2/9 and R-2/8. It is contended that the date of birth of the petitioner being correctly recorded in his service record, his date of retirement on 31st May, 2009 was rightly notified vide office order Annexure P-7. 7. In rejoinder, it is submitted that he had declared his age as 24 years on 31st December, 1975. He would have been 25 years of age on that day, if his date of birth had been taken as 28.5.1952 and not by taking it as 28.5.1951. The form for Police verification was not filled up by him and rather forwarded to the police authorities by his employer. 8. The only point in issue which needs adjudication in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner, who as per date of birth recorded in his service record was due to retire on 31.5.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation was legally entitled to claim correction of his date of birth before few months of his retirement with further prayer to allow him to continue in the service till 31.5.2010 allegedly his due date of retirement. 9. While Shri C.S. Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner on the basis of pleadings and the documents and other material available on record has contended that the date of birth of the petitioner in his service record is wrongly recorded as 28.5.1951 and that he in fact is born on 28.5.1952 and as such was due for retirement on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.5.2010 instead of 31.5.2009. The petitioner no doubt now stands retired from service, however, according to learned counsel by allowing this writ petition, the respondents be directed to release due and admissible benefit to him by treating him in service upto 31.5.2010. 10. On the other hand, Shri Rajnish Maniktala, learned counsel representing 2nd and 3rd respondents has forcefully contended that the 2nd respondent-corporation being an undertaking of Union of India, its employees are governed under the Rules applicable to Central Government employees and as regard their superannuation, in terms of Fundamental Rules. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner, who was appointed in 2nd respondent-corporation long back in the year 1976, should have made request for correction of his date of birth within five years of his entry into government service as provided below Note 6 of sub-rule 2(m) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules and that after the expiry of 33 years in service, the respondents were not obliged to entertain any such request that too at the fag end of his service career. The petition as such has been sought to be dismissed. 11. Before coming to the claims and counter claims laid on both sides, I would like to refer relevant provisions contained under Note 6 below sub-rule 2(m) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, attracted in a situation like the present one. The same reads as follows:- “Note 6.-The date on which a Government servant attains the age of fifty-eight years or sixty years, as the case may be, shall be determined with reference to the date of birth declared by the Government servant at the time of appointment and accepted by the Appropriate Authority on production, as far as possible, of confirmatory documentary evidence such as High School or Higher Secondary or Secondary School Certificate or extracts from Birth Register. The date of birth so declared by the Government servant and accepted by the Appropriate Authority shall not be subject to any alteration except as specified in this note. The date of birth so declared by the Government servant and accepted by the Appropriate Authority shall not be subject to any alteration except as specified in this note. An alteration of date of birth of a Government servant can be made, with the sanction of a Ministry or Department of the Central Government, or the Comptroller and Auditor-General in regard to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, or an Administrator of a Union Territory under which the Government servant is serving, if – (a) a request in this regard is made within five years of his entry into Government service; (b) it is clearly established that a genuine bona fide mistake has occurred; and (c) the date of birth so altered would not make him ineligible or appear in any School or University or Union Public Service Commission examination in which he had appeared, or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered Government service.” 12. A bare perusal of the Rules ibid amply demonstrate that whatever the date of birth declared by a government servant supported by a formal documentary evidence such as High School or Higher Secondary or Secondary School Certificate or extract from birth Register has to be taken his/her correct date of birth for all intents and purposes. The change in his/her date of birth no doubt, is legally permissible, however, if established that the date of birth in the service record came to be recorded wrongly due to bonafide mistake. No doubt, in those cases where a request for change is made by such government servant within five years of his date of entry into service. 13. The law on this point is no more res integra as the apex court in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Others vs. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1), SCC 155, while interpreting the scope of interference by the Court in a case of this nature where under the Rules time limit is the essence for making application for correction, has held that the service Rules having binding forced of law should be strictly followed and where no rule is in existence in that case also an application made within a reasonable time should only be considered. In the case supra the application filed after 33 years of service was not held to be legally maintainable. The ratio of this judgment reads as follows:- “7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation is service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior.” 14. Similar is the ratio of the judgment again that of Hon’ble apex Court in State of Uttaranchal & Others vs. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC, 477, which reads as follows:- “6. These rules, the validity of which have not been challenged, clearly stipulate that no application or representation shall be entertained for correcting any date or age record and the entry made in the service book shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth. Be that as it may, even dehors the said rule, we are of the opinion that the plea of the respondent that the date of birth was wrongly recorded was highly belated. He joined service in 1964, the service book was prepared in 1965 and according to the appellant, he has signed the said service book at least on three occasions. In any case, the plea of the wrong recording of the age in the service book has been taken, nearly thirty years after the service book was prepared. He joined service in 1964, the service book was prepared in 1965 and according to the appellant, he has signed the said service book at least on three occasions. In any case, the plea of the wrong recording of the age in the service book has been taken, nearly thirty years after the service book was prepared. In our opinion, the division bench was in error in ignoring the provisions of the said rule 2 and even otherwise, in the facts of this case, there was no occasion for the High Court to have interfered with the decision of the appellant.” 15. The Hon’ble apex court in its judgment rendered in State of Punjab & Others vs. S.C. Chadha, (2004) 3 SCC 394 , while discussing the consequences of entertaining a delayed application for correction of date of birth has observed as under:- “11. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an important and relevant aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of clinching materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service books. ……” 16. In Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board versus E. Atchanna and Others, (1996) 2, SCC 484, a case where at the time of initial recruitment, the mazdoors failed to produce any proof qua their dates of birth and the same recorded on the basis of their appearance and they having fixed their thumb impressions on the record were not found by the apex Court legally entitled to correction of dates of birth for which they had made the requests on the basis of birth certificates issued by the Panchayat authorities very late i.e. at a stage when were about to retire. 17. To the similar effect is the law laid down by the apex court in Union of India versus Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC, 162:- “7. A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied to by the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. 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. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age. Indeed, as held by this Court in State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka, (1971) 2 SCR 687 : ( AIR 1971 SC 173 ), a public servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the service record and apply for its correction but till the record is corrected he cannot claim to continue in service on the basis of the date of birth claimed by him. This court said: (para 4 of AIR): "The date of compulsory retirement under F.R. 56(a) must in our judgment, be determined on the basis of the service record; and not on what the respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected consistent with the appropriate procedure. A public servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the service record, and may apply for correction of the record. But until the record is corrected, he cannot claim that he has been deprived of the guarantee under Article 31](2) of the Constitution by being compulsorily retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the footing of the date of birth entered in the service record." 18. Now if coming to the case in hand, the petitioner was initially appointed as Jack Hammer Operator on 1.1.1976 in the 2nd respondent Corporation. Annexure R-2/2 is the extract of form filled up by him for getting him medically examined as required under Rules before joining duties by a government servant on the post he is appointed. In this document his date of birth is recorded as 28.5.1951 (24 years). The petitioner himself has represented to the medical officer who had conducted his medical examination that he was 24 years of age. The medical officer has also recorded his satisfaction as is apparent from the perusal of this documents that from appearance, the petitioner was found to be 24 years of age. If the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 28.5.1951 on 31.12.1975, he was 24 plus and has rightly disclosed his age as 24 years. The medical officer has also recorded his satisfaction as is apparent from the perusal of this documents that from appearance, the petitioner was found to be 24 years of age. If the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 28.5.1951 on 31.12.1975, he was 24 plus and has rightly disclosed his age as 24 years. It does not lie in his mouth that in case his date of birth is taken as 28.5.1951, he was 25 years of age because he was to complete 25 years only in May, 1976 and as such in December, 1975 his age could not have been 25 years and rather 24 plus or 24 years as he rightly disclosed before the medical officer and in the opinion of the latter also the former was of 24 years of age at that time. In the form Annexure R-2/3 sent to the Superintendent of Police for verification of antecedents of the petitioner also his date of birth not only in figures but also in words finds recorded as 28.5.1951. 19. Next document is Annexure R-2/4, the application of the petitioner for granting him National Social Security Number under the Employees Provident Funds Act. It was filled up somewhere in the years 2005 i.e. on issuance of instructions in this behalf. In this document also, the date of birth of the petitioner finds recorded is 28.5.1951. The particulars, Annexure R-2/5, the petitioner submitted for making entries in the register maintained under the Mines Act, the year of birth has been changed to 1952 by way of interpolation i.e. by overwriting the last figure 2. Otherwise also, in this document, the year of birth seems to have been initially entered as 1951. In R-2/6 and R-2/7, the particulars he seems to have supplied while making entries in Mines Register and form-B no doubt his date of birth finds recorded as 28.5.1952, however, explanation thereto in reply to the writ petition that the Mines Register remains at work sight and personal particulars to be entered therein are made available by the workman concerned, seems to be plausible and it can reasonably be believed that the Mines Register has not much role so far as the service record of an employee employed in the respondent corporation is concerned. Otherwise also, it is the service book of an employee which contains all information like his qualifications, date of birth, permanent address and other personal particulars. As and when during the course of his/her employment there is need of personal particulars, it is the service book containing all relevant entries is looked into to verify the same. 20. No doubt in his PAN Card Annexure P-2 and Driving Licence Annexure P-4, the date of birth of the petitioner finds recorded as 28.5.1952, however, these documents being not part of the service record of the petitioner and exclusively being his personal documents having no access atleast to his employer, the same cannot be looked into. True it is that the abstract of Mines Register Annexure P-1 for the year ending 1976 and his Identity Card Annexure P-3 have some relevancy because the Mines Register used to be maintained at the sight of work and the identity card is required to be produced as and when required to do so, however, I find considerable force in the case of the respondents that the Mines Register remains at the sight of work whereas identity card again is a document personal to the holder thereof. As already observed the same cannot be made basis to infer that the date of birth of the petitioner is 28.5.1952 particularly when at the time of his entry in the service he disclosed his date of birth as 28.5.1951 (24 years). The medical officer, who had examined him and issued the medical fitness certificate has also certified the age of the petitioner at the relevant time 24 years by appearance and even the petitioner himself disclosed so before the medical officer. 21. Now if coming to the date of birth certificate, Annexure P-5, allegedly produced, the objection thereto raised is that at the time of birth of the petitioner in the year 1952 Registration of Births and Deaths Act was not in existence, which as a matter of fact came to be enacted in the year 1969 and also that in the Register maintained under this Act, such entries would have been made at some later stage. The objections so raised can not be ignored altogether for the reason that had there been any record suggesting that the petitioner is born on 28.5.1952, it is not understandable as to why the same was not produced at the time of entry in the service or within five years from the date of entry of the petitioner in service as required under the Rules referred to hereinabove or at the most within reasonable time. Even no case is found to have been made out that the petitioner had furnished this document to the respondent in the year 2002 as he claims in his representation Annexure P-6. No doubt Annexure P-6 representation so made by him followed by legal notice Annexure P-8 was made by him to the 2nd respondent, however, the same were duly considered by the competent authority, however, his claim being stale and having been made after a period of more than 32 years, could not have been entertained, in view of Note 6 below sub-rule 2(m) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules extracted supra was rightly rejected vide Annexures R-2/9 dated 27.2.2009 and R-2/10 dated 14.5.2009. 22. Be it stated that the record nowhere suggests that the action so taken on the representation of the petitioner was conveyed to him and the grouse to this effect brought to the notice of this court during the course of arguments being genuine carry some weight because he should have been conveyed the decision so taken on his representation. Nothing, however, has been brought to the notice of this Court as to what prejudice has been caused to him particularly when the date of his retirement on superannuation was notified vide office order Annexure P-7 i.e. after a few days of the decision dated 14.5.2009 Annexure R-2/10 taken on his representation/legal notice. He filed this writ petition before this Court on 19th May, 2009 to which reply was also filed after a few days thereafter i.e. on 29.5.2009 annexing thereto the decision so taken also. Thus he had sufficient knowledge of rejection of his representation and legal notice. 23. Now if coming to the case law relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, the same is not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that in Civil appeal No. 6191 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (C) No.5232 of 2006, titled Mohd. 23. Now if coming to the case law relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, the same is not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that in Civil appeal No. 6191 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (C) No.5232 of 2006, titled Mohd. Yunus Khan versus U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others, decided on 22nd October 2008, the appellant had to retire from service in February, 1992 and the representation was not made by him at the fag end of his service career i.e. few months before his retirement and rather four years prior to his retirement i.e. in the year 1988 and that too when no time was prescribed under any rule/order for making a representation for correction of date of birth. It is in this backdrop, the apex court has held that the representation which was made in the year 1988 did not receive due and expeditious consideration at the hand of the authorities. 24. The position in this case, before this Court, however, is altogether different because there exists statutory rules and as per the same any request for change in the date of birth could have been made within five years from the date of entry in service and that too with clinching and clear-cut evidence showing that the date of birth of the petitioner is 28.5.1952, however, wrongly recorded as 28.5.1951 in his service record. 25. The judgment of the apex court in CIDCO versus Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, 2009 (121) FLR 991, is also of no help to the case of the petitioner as he never approached the respondents as per Rules along with genuine and authentic record qua entries in birth register etc. for correction of his date of birth. 26. 25. The judgment of the apex court in CIDCO versus Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, 2009 (121) FLR 991, is also of no help to the case of the petitioner as he never approached the respondents as per Rules along with genuine and authentic record qua entries in birth register etc. for correction of his date of birth. 26. The ratio of the judgment of this court in Mast Ram versus State of H.P. and Others, (CWP No. 569 of 2012), decided on 8th August 2012 is also of no help in this case for the reason that in that case the school authority, which has issued the date of birth certificate to the petitioner was at fault because instead of the certificate qua his date of birth, it is the date of birth certificate of his elder brother issued and in view of his qualification only upto 4th standard as well as he was of young age at that time, it was held that issuance of wrong date of birth certificate escaped his notice and that he was not at fault. Above-all in the Rules applicable in that case there were provision that in the event of showing bonafide mistake while disclosing date of birth at the time of initial entry into service, the request for alteration at some later date beyond the period of five years from the date of entry prescribed under the Rules could have been entertained. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts in the case and also the fact that he approached with clinching proof for alteration of his date of birth, he was held entitled for consideration of his date of birth in the service record. Similar, however, is not the situation in the case in hand. 27. In view of what has been state hereinabove, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order so as to costs.