The court affirmed that applications for correction of date of birth must be made within two years of service entry, and delays undermine service integrity and affect junior employees' promotions.

JUDGMENT

Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, A.C.J. (Oral)

Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-3299-2024 whereby the writ petition was dismissed upholding the order dated 25.07.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by the State whereby the request for change of date of birth had been rejected.

2. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that there was a Civil Court decree dated 10.06.2006 (Annexure P-4) in his favour and therefore, the order passed by the State was not justified.

3. The Learned Single Judge noticed that correction in the date of birth of an official was to be done within 2 years of service. The appellant joined the service in the year 1989 and got the date of birth corrected by the Civil Court by a decree which was passed in the year 2006 and it was in ignorance of the rules governing the service in question. The decree did not entitle the appellant to get his date of birth changed and the same is contrary to the provisions of the rules governing the service. Reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & others v. Shyam Kishore Singh, 2020 (3) SCC 411. Resultantly, the Learned Single Judge did not interfere in the order.

4. A perusal of the order passed by the Addl.Chief Secretary while considering the case in pursuance of the decree which had been passed would go on to show that it was noticed that the Department was never made a party and the case was never contested by the Haryana School Education Board. The correction had been done in the date of birth by the School Education Board and thus, the representation had been made on 03.10.2012. It was noticed that there was a notification dated 13.08.2001 whereby the correction of the age as recorded in the service record was to be considered by the Government in consultation with the Chief Secretary which was to be done within 2 years from the date of entry into the Government service. The application having been submitted beyond the period of 2 years i.e. after 23 years from the date of entry in the Government service was held not to be acceptable in view of the instructions of the Government. Accordingly, the application was rejected in terms of Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Financial Rules Vol.-I read with Finance Department's instructions issued vide letter No.2/2/99-3FR-II dated 13.08.2001. The appellant thereafter chose to sleep over the same and eventually filed the representation dated 10.09.2023 (Annexure P-7), seeking the said benefit again and thereafter, filed the writ petition in the month of January, 2024, which was dismissed, as noticed above and which led to the present appeal being filed.

5. Counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that benefit was granted to one Rati Ram in similar circumstances, on account of the correction made in the Civil Suit, to submit that directions had been issued by the Learned Single Judge to give the consequential benefits and make the necessary correction.

6. We have been informed that an appeal bearing LPA-85-2020 titled State of Haryana & others v. Rati Ram, filed against the order of the Learned Single Judge is pending consideration before this Court and the judgment of the Learned Single Judge has been stayed on 10.02.2020 and thus it would not be appropriate to comment on the directions given since it would prejudice the case of the employee therein.

7. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Harnam Singh, 1993 (2) SCC 162 has laid down the principles whereby the employee can seek correction in his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth but the limitation was that it must be done without any un-reasonable delay. In the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Shri. Dinabandhu Majumdar, 1995 AIR (SC) 1499 the High Court's extra-ordinary jurisdiction of writ Court was commented upon and it was held that the extra-ordinary nature of the jurisdiction is not meant to mak