Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 916 (ALL)

STATE OF U. P. v. NOORJAHAN

2017-04-03

SUDHIR AGARWAL, VIRENDRA KUMAR II

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of petitioners. None has appeared on behalf of respondents though case called in revised. Hence, we proceed to hear and decide the matter after hearing learned Standing Counsel. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has arisen from judgment and order dated 9.3.2007 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) allowing Claim Petition No. 1046 of 2001 wherein petitioners have been directed to correct date of birth of claimant-respondent as 1.1.1944, instead of 1.1.1941 recorded in service book, and give all consequential benefits after allowing her to continue in service as per date of birth 1.1.1944 till she attained age of superannuation. 3. From the record it is evident that claimant-respondent was appointed as Auxilary Nurse Midwife on 4.2.1975. In service book her date of birth was mentioned as 1.1.1941. She passed High School examination in 1978 in which her date of birth was shown as 1.1.1944 but at the time of entering service, the said date of birth was not disclosed and in service book her date of birth was mentioned as 1.1.1941. According to said date of birth, she was retired on attaining of superannuation in 2001. She sought correction in date of birth and filed aforesaid claim petition at the fag end of retirement. 4. It is now well-settled that a date of birth mentioned in service book is not be changed subsequently, at the fag end of retirement. In 1975, service book got mentioned her date of birth as 1.1.1941 and for more than two and half decades no attempt was made by claimant-respondent for its correction. Hence, at the fag end it ought not to have been allowed. 5. Law in respect to correction in date of birth is well-settled that such a claim cannot be entertained after a long time, particularly at the fag end of retirement. The tendency of employees of disputing date of birth at the fag end of retirement has been seriously deprecated by Apex Court, time and again, and it would be useful to refer some of such authorities on the subject. 6. The tendency of employees of disputing date of birth at the fag end of retirement has been seriously deprecated by Apex Court, time and again, and it would be useful to refer some of such authorities on the subject. 6. In Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. M. Hayagreev Sharma, 1990 (2) SCC 682 , Court held that date of birth recorded in service book cannot be altered after long time and that too at the fag end of retirement. In Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and others v. Rangadhar Mallik, 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 763, it was held that representation made for correction in date of birth, near about at the time of superannuation, shall not be entertained. The aforesaid law was reiterated in Union of India v. Hari Ram Singh, 1993 (2) SCC 162 and Court held: “A Government servant, who has declared his age at initial stage of the employment is, off 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 position 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.” 7. Court deprecated practice of entertaining representations or claim of employees with respect to correction of date of birth, after long time, and particularly at the time of retirement. The same view was reiterated in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 155 : State of Tamilnadu v. T.V. Venugopalan, 1994 (6) SCC 302 and State of Orissa v. Ramanath Patnaik, 1997 (5) SCC 181 . It was held, when entry was made in service book, the employee was in service but did not make any attempt to get entry corrected, any amount of evidence produced subsequently, particularly at the time of retirement would be of no consequences and should not be entertained. The above position was also noticed with approval in State of U.P. and others v. Smt. Gulaichi, 2003 (6) SCC 483 . All the aforesaid judgements have been referred to and followed recently, in State of Gujrat and others v. Vali Mohd. The above position was also noticed with approval in State of U.P. and others v. Smt. Gulaichi, 2003 (6) SCC 483 . All the aforesaid judgements have been referred to and followed recently, in State of Gujrat and others v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi, 2006 (6) SCC 537 ; State of Maharashtra and another v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble and others, 2010(14) SCC 423 ; and, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others v. Chhota Birsa Uranw, JT 2014(6) SC 551. 8. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 9.3.2007, passed by Tribunal, is hereby set aside and claim petition of claimant-respondent is hereby rejected.