Changes to recorded dates of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must comply with established regulations, particularly after a significant delay.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a Civil Second Appeal against judgement and decree dated 28^th June 2014, passed by Additional District Judge, Srinagar (for short “1^st Appellate Court”) in Civil First Appeal bearing File no.30/Appeal titled as Ghulam Nabi Sofi v. State of J&K and others, as also against judgement and decree dated 31^st December 2012 passed by 1^st Additional Munsiff, Srinagar (for short “Trial Court”) in a civil suit bearing File no.238/Numbree titled as Ghulam Nabi Sofi v. State of J&K and others, and for setting-aside both the judgements.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

3. Appellant’s case is that he was born on 31^st December 1958. However, his date of birth has been wrongly shown in his service record as 3^rd January 1953. His date of birth had been made at the instance of his illiterate parents. He believed that incorrect date of birth of 1953 was correct, but when he learned from school records of his elder brother and other record maintained by Registrar, Births and Deaths, he came to know that his actual and correct date of birth is 1958 instead of 1953, he approached Registrar Births & Deaths for issuance of Date of Birth Certificate. He was referred to Medical Board to undergo scientific test pertaining to determination of Date of Birth. According to appellant, his date of birth as 1958 has been endorsed by competent authority. Thus, he approached respondents for making necessary correction in his service records qua his date of birth. Respondents, it is next contended, were required to make changes in his date of birth, but of no avail. So, he filed a writ petition, which was disposed of directing respondents to redress his grievance. Respondents turned down his request. Then, he filed a civil suit, seeking following relief:

(a) A decree of declaration declaring plaintiff being born on 31.12.1958 and declaring the recorded date of birth of plaintiff, i.e. 03.01.1953 as incorrect for all purposes including superannuation of the plaintiff;

(b) A decree of mandatory injunction commanding defendants to correct their record pertaining to the date of birth of plaintiff and record 31.12.1958 as actual and correct date of birth of plaintiff;

(c) A decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants 3&4 from retiring plaintiff from the services on the basis of incorrect date of birth recorded in the service book.

4. Defendants/respondents herein, upon notice, filed their written statement, contending that appellant’s/plaintiff’s suit was time barred and as such hit by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also against rules and regulations of defendant-Board and that plaintiff has not disclosed necessary information regarding his first appearance in Matriculation Examination which would suggest his age at the time of such examination inasmuch as medical board opinion was not binding upon them. His date of birth as 3^rd January 1953 was recorded by defendant-Board on the basis of record sent by defendant no.3 and date of birth cannot be permitted to be changed after a period of more than twenty years. The Trial Court, in view of rival contentions of parties, framed following issues;

(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form in view of Section 10 CPC ? OPD

(2) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-disclosure of cause of action? OPD

(3) Whether the suit is time barred? OPP

(4) Whether the actual date of birth of plaintiff is 31.12.1958 instead of 0301.1953? OPD

5. Aforesaid issues 1&3 were taken/treated by Trial Court as preliminary issues and dismissed the suit on 1^st January 2006. However, an appeal was preferred by plaintiff. By order dated 10^th September 2008, Trial Court judgement was set-aside with a direction to dispose of the suit after hearing afresh and after affording opportunity to parties to amend their pleadings if they choose so.

6. Defendant no.2 sought amendment of his written statement to the extent of reading Section 11 CPC instead of Section