Back
2009 Supreme(HP) 1265
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA, J. & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. AHUJA, JJ.
STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS
Petitioners
VERSUS
SHIV LAL
Respondent
C.W.P. No.283 of 2007
Decided on 16-12-2009.
the Petitioners:Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent:Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate.
An employee cannot seek correction of date of birth at a belated stage and must adhere to the prescribed time limits for such requests.
Headnote:
Date of Birth Correction - Government Service - H.P. Financial Rules, Rule 7.1(d), FR 56(m) Note 6, Union of India versus Harnam Singh, State of Gujarat and others versus Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi, State of T.N. versus T.V. Venugopalan - The court discussed the limitations for seeking correction of date of birth in government service, the impact of such corrections on retirement and promotion of employees, and the relevance of relevant service rules and amendments. The court emphasized that an employee cannot seek correction of date of birth at a belated stage and highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits for such requests.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner State filed a civil writ petition against the order of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which allowed the correction of the respondent's date of birth in his service record. The petitioner contended that the respondent's application for correction was made after the prescribed period of 5 years from joining service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's application for correction of date of birth was made after the prescribed period and that the impugned order of the Tribunal was not passed after considering the relevant rules. The court also noted that allowing the correction would have rendered the respondent ineligible for his initial appointment as a JBT teacher.
Issues: The issues involved the timeliness of the respondent's application for correction of date of birth, the impact of such correction on the respondent's eligibility for appointment, and the relevance of the relevant service rules and amendments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an employee cannot seek correction of date of birth at a belated stage and emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits for such requests. The court also highlighted the impact of such corrections on retirement and promotion of employees.
Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the petitioners/State was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was set aside.
V.K. Ahuja, J.- This judgment shall dispose of the civil writ petition filed by the petitioner State under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, hereafter after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, dated 1.8.2006, passed in OA(M) No.288 of 1995, titled Shiv Lal Sharma versus State of H.P.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as alleged by the petitioners, are that the respondent, also referred to as the applicant, filed an Original Application before the Tribunal for correction of his date of birth entry in the service record from 12.5.1946 to 12.5.1947. The allegations made by the applicant in the Original Application were that he was appointed as JBT teacher on 20.11.1964 and had been working as such at different stations. The applicant alleged that he was posted as Teacher at Government Middle School, Chambi in the year 1989 where he had studied earlier and while checking the record, he learnt that his date of birth was 12.5.1947 and not 12.5.1946. He thereafter obtained copy of pariwar register and other documents and accordingly filed a representation to the Department for correction of his date of birth, which representation of his was rejected by respondent No.2. Thereafter, the applicant filed the Original Application before the Tribunal, which was allowed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the State has come up by way of the present writ petition.
3. We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record of the case.
4. The submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/ petitioner were that the applicant filed the Original Application for correction of the date of birth entry after having been in service for about 31 years. It was pleaded that according to the Rules, the applicant could apply for correction of the birth entry within a period of 5 years of his joining service, which period was substituted by 2 years and since the application was presented after 31 years of joining of service, the applicant was not entitled to the relief granted by the Tribunal ordering correction of the date of birth entry.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent had supported the impugned order for the reasons given therein, supplementing it with the submission that the representation was made by the applicant for correction of his birth entry not at the fag end of his career as observed by the learned Tribunal since he had still 10 years to reach the age of superannuation and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not liable to be quashed.
6. Our attention has been drawn to FR 56(m) Note 6, which provides that an alteration of date of birth of a government servant can be made in case the request in this regard is made within 5 years of his entry into government service. This limitation of 5 years for seeking correction was introduced by amendment in the year 1979 vide notification, dated 30.11.1979. There was no limitation prior to the issuance of this Notification in the year 1979. In this regard, we may refer to Rule 7.1(d) of H.P. Financial Rules, which reads as under:
“(d)(1) In regard to the date of birth a declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Govt. service, shall as against the Govt. servant in question, be deemed to be conclusive unless he applies for correction of his age as recorded within 2 years from the date of his entry into Govt. service. Govt., however, reserves the right to make a correction in the recorded age of the Govt. servant at any time against the interest of that Govt. servant when it is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book or in the history of services of a gazetted Govt. servant is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded with the object that the Govt. servant may derive some unfair advan
