Back
2009 Supreme(HP) 411
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE.
SH. JADU RAM
Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS
Respondents
CWP(T) No. 4206/2008 (OA 386/97)
Decided on 5-5-2009.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate, for the petitioner.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur,
Addl. A.G. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. for the respondents.
The need for genuine and conclusive proof of date of birth, and the importance of clean hands in seeking equitable considerations.
Headnote:
Date of Birth - Work Charged Beldar - The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Section 13(3), Section 15 - The court discussed the rectification proceedings under the Act, the presumption of validity and regularity of certificates, and the requirement for thorough investigation before issuing a certificate. The court emphasized the need for genuine and conclusive proof of date of birth, and the importance of clean hands in seeking equitable considerations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a work charged Beldar, sought reinstatement and correction of his date of birth in his service record, claiming that his actual date of birth was different from the one initially submitted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's representation for correction of date of birth was rejected based on a rule that did not apply to his situation. However, the court also noted that the rectification proceedings and subsequent certificate raised doubts about the genuineness of the petitioner's claimed date of birth.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's representation for correction of date of birth, the genuineness of the subsequent certificate, and the presumption of validity and regularity of certificates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for genuine and conclusive proof of date of birth, and the importance of clean hands in seeking equitable considerations. It also highlighted the rebuttable nature of the presumption of validity and regularity of certificates.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as being without merit.
Sanjay Karol, J-The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i) That the applicant may kindly be re-instated as work charged Beldar with all consequential benefits and Annexure A-9 may kindly be quashed and set aside;
(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to make the entry qua date of birth in his service record as 11.10.1943.”
2. Annexure A-9 is the order passed by the Junior Engineer conveying the superannuation of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.8.1995.
3. Petitioner was appointed as Beldar in the year 1979. He was given the status of a Work Charged Beldar with effect from 15.12.1994. He was asked to furnish the proof of his age alongwith other documents. The petitioner joined on 31.12.1994 and furnished the birth certificate showing his date of birth as 9.8.1935 (Annexure R-2). He was medically examined and even as per the certificate issued by the Medical Officer (Annexure R/3) he was found to be 59 years of age. The Government accepted the petitioner’s contention and in the records, incorporated the date of birth as furnished by him. Accordingly he retired on 31.8.1995.
4. Just two days prior to his retirement, petitioner represented to the Government that the birth certificate initially submitted by him, wrongly reflected his date of birth to be 9.8.1935, whereas it should have been 11.10.1943. He got the mistake rectified in the record maintained under the provisions of The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) evidenced from the order dated 29.8.1995 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Bilaspur (Annexure A/5-T) as also the latest birth certificate (Annexure A-6). Accordingly he asked the Government for correction of the entries of his date of birth with a further request that he be allowed to continue to discharge his duties till the date he acquired the age of retirement commencing from 11.10.1943.
5. His representation was rejected vide letter dated 9.8.1996 (Annexure A-1) for the reason that under Rule 7.1 of the H.P.F.R. Volume-I, a Government servant could apply for correction of date of birth within two years from the date of his entry in Government service.
6. The reason assigned by the respondents is obviously untenable in law. The petitioner was awarded work charged status only on 15.12.1994 and prior to that he was only working as a Daily Waged Beldar. It is common case of the learned counsel for the parties, that no record of age of proof/date of birth is either required to be furnished by the employee or maintained by the employer. Since petitioner took steps to get the governmental record corrected within two years, it cannot be said that the Rules stood violated in any manner.
7. But the fact of the matter is that the respondents were not party to the rectification proceedings. Petitioner immediately did not bring the fact of the incorrect recording of his date of birth to the authorities. It was just two days prior to his retirement that he got the record rectified. Even with regard to the same lot can be said.
8. Method and the manner adopted by the Executive Magistrate in passing the order dated 29.8.1995 and issuing the certificate of Birth (Annexure A-6) only raises doubt about the petitioner’s alleged actual date of birth. Importantly not much reliance can be placed on the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Bilaspur as from the order sheet it is evident that petitioner moved an application for rectification on 29.8.1995 and without issuing any public notice or affording adequate time/ opportunity calling for objections from the General Public, order thereupon was passed on the very same day itself. Everything appears to have been done in great haste.
9. Further, it appears that in the said application petitioner concealed issuance of earlier certificate issued by the authorities under The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, indicating his date of birth as 9.8.1935 (Annexure R-2). Evidently order dated 29.8.1995 w
