Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 268 (MP)

Devi Lal v. State of M. P.

2015-03-04

RAJENDRA MENON

body2015
ORDER 1. Petitioner was working as a Peon in District Hospital Bhanwra, Tahsil Ashta, District Sehore and vide order-dated 13.5.2008 treating his date of birth as recorded in the service book to be ‘1.6.1946’, he has been retired from service. Claim of the petitioner is that as per Medical Officer’s Report, his age was recorded as 30 years as on ‘12.2.1958’ and claiming correction of this date of birth when an application was filed just before the date of retirement, the respondents having rejected the application, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites my attention to the date of birth recorded in the service book – Annexure P-1 as ‘1.6.1946’ an points out that petitioner was not aware of this date of birth being entered. When he entered the service, he was sent for medical examination vide Annexure P-2 on 30.1.1988, and in this communication while sending the petitioner for medical examination, it was clearly indicated that the age of the petitioner should be examined and a report submitted. It is stated that the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sehore vide certificate – Annexure P-3 certified the age of the petitioner as 30 years as on 12.2.1988 and instead of correcting the date of birth accordingly, the respondents are taking action for retiring him. Accordingly, when the retirement notice was given, petitioner submitted the representation – Annexure P-4 on 25.2.2008 alongwith his affidavit and when action was taken, this petition was filed. 3. Placing heavy reliance on the medical certificate – Annexure P-3 and the age of the petitioner indicated therein as 30 years, relief is sought for in this petition to say that the entry of date of birth as ‘1.6.1946’ is not correct. 4. Respondents have filed return and learned Panel Lawyer points out that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1975. When his service book was prepared at the time of appointment vide Annexure P-1, petitioner declared his date of birth as ‘1.6.1946’ and based on his declaration, his date of birth was entered; his thumb impression was obtained in column No.9 and his signature in column No.10 of the service book and the same was counter signed by the attesting officer. Once his date of birth is recorded as ‘1.6.1946’ in the service book, he cannot now be permitted to change his stand and seek correction of the date of birth that also at the fag end of his career. Referring to Rule 84 of the Madhya Pradesh Financial Code and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Nath v. Union of India, 2005(1) MPLJ 233; State of M.P. and others v. Premlal Shrivas, 2011(3) JLJ 241= (2011)9 SCC 664 , learned counsel for the State points out that the date of birth recorded in the service book is decisive proof of the employee’s correct date of birth and if correction of date of birth is not sought for within a reasonable period of entry into service, the correction cannot be permitted. Learned Panel Lawyer further places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and another v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, (2005) 6 SCC 49 , in support of the aforesaid contention. 5. As far as the medical certificate – Annexure P-3 issued by the Chief Medical and Health, Sehore is concerned, learned counsel for the State submits that before issuing the certificate, no ossification test or any scientific process for determination of the date of birth or age was undertaken by the Doctor. The Doctor merely on the statement of the petitioner and his physical appearance has recorded his age, which cannot be accepted. Accordingly, learned Panel Lawyer prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this writ petition. 7. Admittedly, when the petitioner was appointed, the service book was prepared and in the entries made in the service book as is evident from Annexure P-1, date of birth was recorded as ‘1.6.1946’, both in figures and in words. There is no over-writing, manipulation or any error in this entry to cast any doubt. That apart, the service book is countersigned by the petitioner in Column No.10 and his thumb impression is also available in Column No.9 of the service book. The attesting officer has signed the service book, as a token of the correctness of the entries made. 8. That apart, the service book is countersigned by the petitioner in Column No.10 and his thumb impression is also available in Column No.9 of the service book. The attesting officer has signed the service book, as a token of the correctness of the entries made. 8. That being so, once the date of birth of the petitioner is entered in the service book and the same is available then in the absence of exonerating circumstances being made out to say that the date of birth has not been properly entered, a writ Court cannot interfere into the matter. Moreover, it is seen that the petitioner is now seeking correction of the date of birth only on the basis of the certificate issued by the Doctor – Annexure P-3 on 12.1.1988, indicates that the Doctor has recorded the age of the petitioner ‘round about 30 years’ as on 12.1.1988, not based on any ossification or scientific test conducted, but only on the basis of the petitioner’s statement and his physical appearance. As such, this certificate cannot put to use as a proof with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. Apart from this certificate, there is no other document relied upon by the petitioner. 9. Under Rule 84 of the MP Financial Code, an employee should seek correction of his date of birth and such correction is permissible only if there is any clerical error in the same. 10. That apart, the petitioner sought correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his career when the notice of retirement is served. The principle laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (supra) and Premlal Shrivas (supra) indicate that the correction of date of birth at the fag end of the career just before retirement cannot be permitted and the date of birth recorded in the service book is a decisive proof with regard to the age of the employee. 11. In the present case, as the date of birth is available in the service book and there is no reason to disbelieve the same, this Court does not find any ground to interfere into the matter. 12. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the legal principle as detailed hereinabove, no indulgence in the matter is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 12. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the legal principle as detailed hereinabove, no indulgence in the matter is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Sanjay Singh for petitioner; Smt. Shahin Fatima, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.