Delay in raising a claim for rectification of date of birth in service records can lead to dismissal of the appeal, as it defeats equity.

JUDGMENT :

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed by the writ court in W.P.(S) No. 207 of 2021 which was dismissed and the claim of the petitioner to correct the date of birth in his entire service records based on matriculation certificate as 09.10.1972 instead of 25.08.1967 has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds to the post of Minor Loader and joined his service on 30.10.1990 at Madhuban Colliery under respondent-BCCL.

4. The claim of the writ petitioner before the writ court was that before joining his service, he appeared in the matriculation examination and has duly submitted his admit card to the management and thereafter, the Area Personal Manager vide letter dated 15.02.2000 has issued a letter to the Bihar School Examination Board for verification of the certificate.

The further case of the writ-petitioner was that during course of his service he was promoted to the post of Mining Sardar, wherein the date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation certificate has been correctly mentioned in the relevant document as ‘09.10.1972’.

The petitioner for the first time represented before the respondents on 07.02.2006 when he came to know about the date of birth mentioned in the service excerpts as ‘25.08.1967’ but the same was not considered.

However, as per the petitioner his date of birth entered in service excerpts as 23 year as on 25.08.1990 is not correct; and thus the learned Writ court has committed an error in not allowing the prayer of the petitioner and giving direction to the concerned respondent to correct the date of birth from 09.10.1972 to 25.08.1967.

5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Sr. Counsel assailed the writ court order and submitted that the respondents were not justified in accepting the date of birth as 23 years as on 25.08.1990 when the matriculation certificate was already available. He further submits that even the respondents have considered the date of birth as 09.10.1972 while granting promotion to the post of Mining Sardar therefore, it was for the respondents to enter the same date of birth as per matriculation certificate in the entire service excerpts including “Statutory Form-B Register”. Since the petitioner passed the matriculation examination before entering into the service and as such it cannot be said that it is a belated claim. The wrong entry in the service excerpts was solely due to the fault of the respondents-employer and not due to the fault of writ petitioner.

In support of his contention he heavily relied upon the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw reported in 2014 12 SCC 570 and submits that in the instant case the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the claim of that employee by observing as under:-

“15. As noted by us, the respondent in 1987 on coming to know of the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service records from the nomination form sought rectification. Therefore, such rectification was not sought at the fag end of his service. We have further noticed that the High Court duly verified the genuineness of the school leaving certificate on the basis of a supplementary affidavit filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Mishra, Legal Inspector of the appellant Company on 6-9-2010 before the High Court. It has been admitted in the said supplementary affidavit that the school leaving certificate has been verified and has been found to be genuine. We have further noticed that Implementation Instruction 76 Clause (i)(a) permits rectification of the date of birth by treating the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate to be correct provided such certificates were issued by the educational institution prior to the date of employment. The question of interpreting the words “were issued” was correctly interpreted, in our opinion, by the High Court which interpreted the said words for