Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 243 (CHH)

Dular Ram Yadav v. State of C. G.

2014-07-01

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
Order Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Petitioner was working as a daily wager in the Forest Department since 1984. He was regularised in the year 2008 and thereafter, mentioning his date of birth as 1-7-1952 the service book was prepared. When the petitioner was served with an intimation informing him about his date of superannuation he raised an objection that his age is 48 years, therefore, he should be allowed to continue in service till he attains the age of 62 years on the basis of his age, which should taken as 48 years. The authorities referred the petitioner to the Medical Board, who opined that the age of the petitioner may be 47-52 years. 2. On the strength of recommendation of the Medical Board, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the date of birth of the petitioner deserves to be corrected. 3. Recommendation or report of the Medical Board is not conclusive proof for deciding the age or date of birth of a person. For recording date of birth in the service book or effecting any change therein the person has to place reliance on some clinching piece of evidence like the certificate of matriculation examination. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner is an illiterate person and is not in possession of any certificate proving his date of birth otherwise than what is mentioned in his service book. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not mentioned what is his true date of birth. 5. The petition seeking correction of date of birth at the fag end of service career has no merit. Even otherwise, it is well settled principle of law that attempt to extend the period of service by way of seeking correction or amendment at the fag end of service career is not permissible in law. 6. Rules 84 & 85 under the Financial Code Part 1, which deals with date of birth in respect of Government employees, was considered by this Court in Jhalaram Kannaoje Vs. State of C.G. & Others, 2007(3) CGLJ 396 and it was held as under: "7. Bare reading of above stated provisions of Rules 84 and 85 which are clear and unambiguous provides that there cannot be alteration of date of birth, if there is no inconsistency or typographic error in the entry of date of birth made in the service book." 7. Bare reading of above stated provisions of Rules 84 and 85 which are clear and unambiguous provides that there cannot be alteration of date of birth, if there is no inconsistency or typographic error in the entry of date of birth made in the service book." 7. The identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in Benudhar Pradhan Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh WP No. 536 of 2004 (decided on 18-1-2010), wherein this Court observed as under: "13. In the matter of correction in the date of birth, the consistent view of Hon'ble Supreme Court is that correction in entries made in government records on the basis of which the government servant got the service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before retirement or at the fag end of his retirement. It is well settled that an employee will not be permitted to apply for change of date of birth at the fag end of his service career and in any case the High Court ought not to have exercised its writ jurisdiction to determine the real date of birth. (See U.P Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465 and Coal India Ltd. and Another Vs. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee and others 2005(12) SCC 201)". 8. The Government servant is not precluded from making a request later on for correcting 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, this may be done without any unreasonable delay (See: Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh (1993) 2 SCC 162 ). 9. In the case on hand, the petitioner has raised the issue at the fag end of his service career, as aforestated, producing the medical report, which cannot be held as proper certificate for correction of date of birth. Thus, it cannot be held as irrefutable proof for change of date of birth of the petitioner recorded in his service book. 10. As an upshot, the writ petition, sans merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Petition dismissed.