Point of Law: Court has consistently held that request for change of date of birth in service records at fag end of service is not sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:

“(i) That the respondents, more particularly, Respondent No. 1 may very kindly be directed to carry the correction in the service record of the applicant qua his date of birth as 02.11.1963 instead of 15.12.1960 in terms of the Annexure A-1 to A-6.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the applicant to continue in the services of the respondents till he attains the age of superannuation on the basis of his correct/actual date of birth i.e. 02.11.1963.”

2. The petitioner was initially engaged as a Driver on 23.04.1986 and later on in the year 2010 promoted as Additional Foreman-cum-Driver, on which post, the petitioner continued to serve till the filing of this petition.

3. According to the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner at the time of entering the service of the respondents was wrongly entered as 15.12.1960 instead of 02.11.1963, qua which he had no knowledge. The same came to his knowledge only in the year 2010 when he was posted as Additional Foreman-cum-Driver. Thereafter he approached respondent No. 2 and obtained the birth certificate wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned as 15.12.1960. The petitioner then contacted an Advocate at Reckong Peo and got prepared an affidavit along with which he attached a certificate dated 08.06.2011 issued by the Gram Panchayat and submitted the same to the respondents, but to no avail. Thereafter, another affidavit was got prepared and submitted to respondent No. 1, yet no action was taken by it, constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition on 03.08.2018.

4. The respondents have filed the reply opposing the claim of the petitioner on the ground the claim being highly belated in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 7.1 of HPFR (Vol.II) as well as Note 6(a) appended below FR 56 regarding correction in the date of birth, which provides for correction in the date of birth within 2/5 years only from the date of initial entry in the government service except clerical mistake in recording the date of birth.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on the record.

6. The petitioner admittedly is a government servant, whose services are governed not only by Fundamental Rules for Servants FR56, but also by Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971 and could have, therefore, made a request for correction of his date of birth within two or five years of his being inducted in service in terms of the aforesaid Rules.

7. It has consistently been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that request for change of date of birth in service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable.

8. It is otherwise well settled law that an application for change of date of birth can:

(i) only be as per relevant provisions/regulations applicable.

(ii) even when cogent evidence exists, it cannot be claimed as matter of right.

(iii) same can be rejected on ground of delay and laches, especially when made at fag end of service and/or when an employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.

9. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to one of the latest judgments on the subject rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited vs. T.P. Nataraja and Others, (2021) 12 SCC 27 wherein it was held as under:

“10. Even otherwise and assuming that the reasoning given by the High Court for the sake of convenience is accepted in that case also even respondent No. 1-employee was not entitled to any relief or change of date of birth on the ground of delay and laches as the request for change of date of birth was made after lapse of 24 years since he joined the service. At this stage, few decisions of this court on the issue of correction of the date of birth are required to be referred to.

10.1 In the case of Home Department vs. R. K