Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 521 (MP)

Jafaruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh Madhya

2025-08-19

ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

body2025
ORDER : With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):- (i) That, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) may kindly be declared as illegal and the same may kindly be quashed. (ii) That a direction may kindly be given to the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book accordance with mark-sheet of 8 th Class. (iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioner along with costs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner entered into the employment initially as a daily wager employee on the post of labourer vide order dated 1.7.1974. It is further submitted that in the mark-sheet of Class- 8 th (1974) the date of birth is recorded as 2.4.1958. Such appointment is based into the selection process and got appointed after due selection. While appointing the petitioner as daily wager employee which is based on Class 8 th and the same was placed before the respondents/authorities and the petitioner has disclosed his actual date of birth as mentioned in the 8 th Class Examination i.e. 2.4.1958. On the basis of the same, the respondents are bound to prepare his service roll. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent department and was performing his duties with honesty and dedication. During his tenure, several juniors were regularized by the respondents; however, the case of the petitioner was not considered for regularization. When the petitioner came to know in year 2009 that a new list for regularization was being prepared, he approached the Divisional Office, Sheopur where the petitioner came to know that his date of birth had been wrongly entered in the service book due to a clerical error. Accordingly, on 20.08.2009, the petitioner submitted an application to the department, along with his Transfer Certificate (T.C.), requesting correction of his date of birth in the service records. Thereafter, on 2.3.2016 the petitioner again submitted the representation. The petitioner has been victimized by not correcting his date of birth in accordance with mark-sheet. The petitioner has the right to get his date of birth corrected according to his 8th class mark-sheet. Thereafter, on 2.3.2016 the petitioner again submitted the representation. The petitioner has been victimized by not correcting his date of birth in accordance with mark-sheet. The petitioner has the right to get his date of birth corrected according to his 8th class mark-sheet. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief. 5. Per-contra learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that this writ petition is highly misconceived, hence, deserves to be dismissed with a heavy cost. So many facts are suppressed by the petitioner deliberately and he has not come with clean hands before this Court claiming the relief in the present writ petition. The petitioner was initially appointed as labourer. Petitioner himself fulfilled his employment particulars with the department and he himself recorded his date of birth as 1.7.1955 on the basis of 8th Class mark sheet. He himself filled up all necessary information; therefore, he cannot take U-turn to correct his date of birth after so many years. The petitioner has fulfilled all such information including his date of birth i.e. 1.7.1955 with an open eyes now there is no occasion to change or correct date of birth in the petitioner's service roll. The petitioner has approached before this Court in the year 2017 while he entered into service in the year 1974. After so many decades, he has no authority in law to claim the relief to correct the record. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself was aware of his correct date of birth, and he personally filled in all necessary information, including his date of birth as 01.07.1955, in the service records and employment particulars, as is evident from the record. Therefore, at the fag end of his service, the petitioner cannot take a U-turn, as he had knowingly entered his date of birth in the service roll with open eyes. It is further submitted that present petition also suffers from delay and latches because petitioner has entered into service in the year 1974 but since then he keep mum and now filed present petition in the year 2017 after so many decades. It is further submitted that present petition also suffers from delay and latches because petitioner has entered into service in the year 1974 but since then he keep mum and now filed present petition in the year 2017 after so many decades. It is further submitted that since in the year 2017 he has approached before this Court with a relief to change his date of birth as per Class 8 th Certificate, various disputed questions of facts are involved in the present petition, which cannot be adjudicated because this Court cannot conduct an enquiry to verify the correct date of birth. It is further submitted that petitioner should have filed civil suit for declaration in this regard and since after so may decades, he has come before this Court to claim a relief to change/correct date of birth, therefore, he has filed present petition, instead of filing civil suit for declaration due to such alternate remedy of filing civil suit, present petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that as per Finance Rule 84, the date of birth entered in the service record constitutes conclusive proof of an employee’s date of birth.The petitioner was entered in service on 1.7.1974 and his date of birth has been recorded i.e. 1.7.1955, therefore, in view of the Finance Rule 84 same cannot be corrected. In this regard, he relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited and another v. M.C. Subramaniam Reddy (2021) 12 SCC 27 . 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The petitioner himself has fulfilled his employment particulars with the department and he himself recorded the date of birth as 1.7.1955. He himself filled up all necessary information with the department. 8. The petitioner approached this Court in the year 2017 while he had entered into service 1974 and after so many decades he has no authority in law to claim the relief to correct and record the date of birth on the basis of Class 8 th Mark sheet. 9. It is settled position that the request for change of date of birth in the service record at the fag end of service is not sustainable. The relevant paras 10 to 12 in the case of M.C. Subramaniam Reddy (supra) reads as under: “10. 9. It is settled position that the request for change of date of birth in the service record at the fag end of service is not sustainable. The relevant paras 10 to 12 in the case of M.C. Subramaniam Reddy (supra) reads as under: “10. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 574] it is held as hereunder : (SCC pp. 667 & 669, paras 8 & 12) ‘8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag- end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he 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. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375] ). 12. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375] ). 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty- bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book. ” 10. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarised as under: (i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also more particularly when it is made at the fag-end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. 11. The Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code reads as under: “Every person newly appointed to a service or a post under government should at the time of the appointment declare the date of his birth by the Chirstian Era with as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence such as a matriculation certificate, Municipal Birth Certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known, an approximate date may be given. If the exact date is not known, an approximate date may be given. The actual date or the assume date determined under rule 85 should be recorded in the History of service, Service Book or any other record that may be kept in the respect of government servant’s service under Government. The date of birth, once record in this manner, must be deemed to the absolutely conclusive, and except in the case of a clerical error no revision of such a decalaration shall be allowed to be made at a later period for any purpose whatever.” 12. From bare perusal of aforesaid Rule-84 it reveals that date of birth entered in the service record is conclusive proof of an employee with respect to his/her date of birth. Admittedly the petitioner was entered in service and his date of birth has been record as 1.7.1955, therefore, in view of the Rule-84 of the M.P. Financial Code same cannot be corrected. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable. The learned respondent's Advocate has in that regard relied on the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble (State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 582] wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder (SCC pp. 428-29, paras 16-17 & 19): "16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 96]. In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career. 17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106] relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. 17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106] relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment [Pitamber Dutt Semwal v. State of U.P., 1999 SCC OnLine All 1610: 2000 All L.J 2341] of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades. 19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the Court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran [Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155: 1994 SCC (L&S) 449] reads as under (SCC pp. 158-59, para 7): '7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service]. 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 their promotions forever.... 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. 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.... the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book." 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 574] it is held as hereunder (SCC pp. 667 & 669, para 8): "8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he 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. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375]).” 15. The Supreme Court in the case of Factory Manager Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Laxman [Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Laxman, (2020) 3 SCC 419] dated 25-4-2019 wherein the belated claim was not entertained. 16. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Premlal Shrivas reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 has held as under:- “12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty- bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book. 14. It is manifest from a bare reading of Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding on the government servant. 14. It is manifest from a bare reading of Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding on the government servant. It is clear that the said Rule has been made in order to limit the scope of correction of date of birth in the service record. However, an exception has been carved out in the Rule, permitting the public servant to request later for correcting his age provided that incorrect recording of age is on account of a clerical error or mistake. This is a salutary rule, which was, perhaps, inserted with a view to safeguard the interest of employees so that they do not suffer because of the mistakes committed by the official staff. Obviously, only that clerical error or mistake would fall within the ambit of the said Rule which is caused due to the negligence or want of proper care on the part of some person other than the employee seeking correction. Onus is on the employee concerned to prove such negligence.” 17. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the petitioner 42 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the petitioner that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the respondents were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book. 18. There is also no substance in the plea of the petitioner that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the respondents were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book. 18. In view of the aforesaid, since the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly, his claim with regard to change of her date of birth cannot be entertained at this stage, therefore, this Court does not find any ground to make interference in the impugned order. The petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. No costs. C.C. as per rules.