Back
2012 Supreme(HP) 618
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
Dharampal – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
CWP No. 1572 of 2009.
Decided On : 30th November, 2012.
For the petitioner:Mr. C.S. Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the time limit for correction of date of birth as stipulated in Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, and the consequences of entertaining delayed applications for correction of date of birth.
Headnote:
Date of Birth - Retirement Dispute - Fundamental Rules - Rule 56 - Note 6 - Mines Act - Birth Certificate - PAN Card - Identity Card - Driving Licence - [Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, Mines Act, Birth Certificate, PAN Card, Identity Card, Driving Licence]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the respondent corporation, disputed his date of birth, claiming it to be 28.5.1952 instead of 28.5.1951 recorded in his service book. He sought correction of his date of birth to extend his retirement date from 31.5.2009 to 31.5.2010.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for correction of date of birth was made after 33 years of service, beyond the time limit prescribed by Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. The court held that the petitioner's claim was stale and could not be entertained.
Issues: The issues were whether the impugned order was erroneous in view of the documents presented by the petitioner, whether it violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and whether it was against the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in a specific case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, which stipulates a time limit for correction of date of birth. It also relied on various judgments to emphasize the importance of adhering to the time limit for correction of date of birth and the consequences of entertaining delayed applications.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim for correction of date of birth and extension of retirement date.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
The petitioner herein has claimed the following relief in this writ petition: -
“i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Order dated 27.4.2009 (Annexure P-7 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been ordered to retire w.e.f. 31.5.2009 deeming his date of birth to be 28.05.1951 which is against the records;
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order direction directing respondent-management to correct the date of birth of the petitioner to be 28.05.1952 instead of 28.05.1951 mentioned inadvertently in the service book.”
2. As per the undisputed facts the petitioner initially was appointed as Jack Hammer Operator on 1.1.1976 by 2nd respondent-corporation in its project at Rajban, District Sirmour. Subsequently, he was promoted as Heavy Equipment Operator. The age of superannuation of an employee of the 2nd respondent Corporation is 58 years. The dispute, however, is with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. While he claims his date of birth as 28.5.1952, the respondent in complete denial thereto submits that his date of birth as he himself disclosed at the time of his entry in service is 28.5.1951 and recorded so in the service book of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner in order to substantiate his claim has pressed into service Annexure P-1 abstract of Register of employees maintained under the statutory provisions of Mines Act allegedly pertaining to the year 1976, copy of his PAN Card Annexure P-2, copy of identity card Annexure P-3, copy of driving licence Annexure P-4 and also copy of the date of birth certificate Annexure P-5. It is worthwhile to mention here that qua these documents, the date of birth of the petitioner finds entered as 28.5.1952. He allegedly made available his birth certificate to the respondent in the year 2002 and made a request for correction of his date of birth. The request so made was followed by his representation dated 29.1.2009 annexure P-6, but of no avail and to the contrary vide office order dated 27.4.2009, Annexure P-7 his date of retirement has been notified as 31.5.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. No action has even been taken on the legal notice Annexure P-8 served upon the respondents.
4. The following legal questions have been brought to this Court in this writ petition for adjudication:-
“(i) Whether the impugned order Annexure P-7 is erroneous in view of annexure P-1 to P-5?
(ii) Whether the impugned order Annexure P-7 is arbitrary and thus in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
(iii) Whether the impugned order Annexure P-7 is arbitrary and against the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Mohd. Yunus Khan versus U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Others’ decided on 22.08.2008 in Civil Appeal No.6191 of 2008?
5. In the reply to the writ petition, the stand taken by the respondent in a nut shell is that it is the petitioner, who himself declared his date of birth as 28.5.1951 while furnishing his personal particulars for making entries thereof in his service book. Also that at the time of his medical examination not only he declared his age as 24 years of age before the medical officer but in the opinion of the medical officer he by way of appearance was of 24 years at that time. The application form for police verification also contains his date of birth as 28.5.1951. In the form he submitted for allotment of National Social Security Number in accordance with the instructions circulated in the year 2005 he declared his date of birth as 28.5.1951. The documents Annexures R-2/a to R-2/4, which contain his date of birth as 28.5.1951 and duly signed by him have been pressed into service in this behalf.
6. As regards his date of birth recorded as 28.5.1952 in the Register of employees maintained under the Mines Act Annexure P-1/R-2/5, it is submitted that s
