Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 305 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Shivpal Singh Uikey

2014-03-19

RAJENDRA MENON, VIMLA JAIN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants. Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A.No. 13126/2010, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal. 3. Keeping in view the reasons indicated in the application, the delay of 69 days in filing this appeal is condoned. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. 5. Respondent Shri Shivpal Singh Uikey was working as Mechanic Grade-I in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division I, Rani Awanti Bai Sagar Project Bargi Nagar, Jabalpur and in the matter of correction of his date of birth a dispute arose and the matter came to Writ Court in, W. P. No. 18997/2006(8) and the learned writ Court by the impugned order dated 2-7-2010 having allowed the correction of the date of birth, this appeal has been filed by the State Government. 6. The only ground canvassed by the department for challenging the impugned action is that the employee sought for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his career and in view of the law laid down and the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court to the effect that request for correction of date of birth at the fag end is not permissible and Writ Court should have dismissed the writ petition. 7. On the contrary, Shri S. K. Tiwari, invites our attention to the findings and observations made by the learned Writ Court and emphasized that it was the department which had been communicating with the respondent for correction of his date of birth and based on the communication made the respondent employee produced the document and therefore no error has been committed by the learned Writ Court in directing of correction of the date of birth. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we see no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court in allowing the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we see no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court in allowing the writ petition. Even though the correction of the date of birth was permitted about 2 years prior to superannuation of the employee but the fact remains that right from the year 2002 i.e. 4 years prior to his retirement the department authorities were seeking verification and certification of the date of birth and corresponding with the respondent and it was found that the date of birth entered in the record itself was doubtful and the verification continued upto November, 2004, observing so interference was made by the learned Writ Court. We are of the considered view that no error has been committed by the learned Writ Court warranting any interference in the matter. The action of the department in making correspondence and ordering for verification and certification of the date of birth of the respondent goes to show that the correction of the date of birth was being undertaken by the department itself. The conduct of the department itself goes to show that they were not sure about the date of birth and were making inquiries and queries about the date of birth of the respondent. We find no reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Appeal dismissed.