Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
1. Petitioner’s writ petition seeking correction in his date of birth, as entered in the service record, stands rejected by the learned Single Judge.
Hence, he has preferred instant appeal.
2. Facts
2(i) Petitioner joined as a daily waged beldar in the year 1995 in the respondent Irrigation & Public Health Department in I.P.H. Sub Division Taklech,
Division Rampur. His services were regularized on 11.01.2007. At the time of his regularization, petitioner’s date of birth was entered in his
service record as 07.04.1958.
2(ii) Petitioner represented to the concerned authorities on 28.11.2014 for correcting his date of birth in the service record. The representation was not
responded. In accordance with the date of birth entered in the service record, the petitioner was to superannuate on 30.04.2016. Four days prior to his
superannuation i.e. on 26.04.2016, he filed an original application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal for changing the date of birth
entered in his service record. Learned Single Judge dismissed the original application as CWPOA No. 7212 of 2019 vide judgment dated 31.08.2020
primarily on the ground that the petitioner did not approach the employer for correction in the recorded date of birth within the time stipulated under
the rules in vogue. This judgment has been impugned in the instant appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Contentions
3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that correct date of birth of the petitioner was 01.03.1963 and not 07.04.1958, which was entered in
the service record. The fact of recording of 07.04.1958 as his date of birth in the service record came to the petitioner’s knowledge only in the
year 2011, whereafter he took steps for obtaining the school leaving certificate wherein his date of birth was reflected as 01.03.1963. Learned counsel
further contended that date of birth (07.04.1958) mentioned in the service record of the petitioner was as per the Panchayat record. However, the
Gram Panchayat record was gutted in fire in 1994, therefore, the respondent-department cannot rely upon the Gram Panchayat record which was not
in existence at the time of joining of the petitioner on daily wage basis in the year 1995.
3(ii) Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General contended that at the time of regularization of the petitioner, he alongwith his joining report had
submitted his birth certificate issued on 13.12.2006 by the department of Health and Family Welfare reflecting his date of birth as 07.04.1958.
Accordingly, 07.04.1958 was entered as petitioner’s date of birth in his service record. It is also contended that the declaration of age made by the
employee at the time of or for the purpose of entry into government service is to be deemed to be conclusive unless he applies for correction of his
age within the period stipulated in the applicable rules. In the instant case, the petitioner had not applied for correction of his age within the stipulated
period, therefore, his writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge.
4. Observations
4(i) Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules provide that every person, newly appointed to a service or post under the Government, shall, at the time of
appointment, declare his date of birth by the Christian era with confirmatory documentary evidence such as Matriculation Certificate, where essential
qualification for appointment is Matriculation or above. In other cases, Municipal or Panchayat Birth Certificate or Certificate from the recognized
school last attended, shall be treated as a valid document.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that services of the petitioner were regularized on 11.01.2007, pursuant to which, he submitted his joining report
on 22.01.2007. Along with the joining report, the petitioner also furnished his birth certificate issued by the department of Health and Family Welfare.
The date of issuance of this certificate is 13.12.2006 and reflects petitioner’s date of birth as 07.04.1958. In fact, petitioner also appended his bio-
data alongwith his joining report, where also, 07.04.1958 is reflected as his date of birth.
4(ii) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that his date of birth entered in his service record was based upon Panchayat record is not
borne out from the record. The date of birth was entered in petitioner’s service record on the basis of his birth certificate produced by him at the
time of his regularization.
4(iii) Be that as it may. Clause 7.1 of Chapter VII of Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971 (reproduced hereinafter) provides that declaration of
age made by the employee at the time of or for the purpose of entry into government service be deemed to be conclusive unless the employee applies
for correction of his recorded age within two years from the date of his entry into the government service. Clause 7.1 (d) of Chapter VII reads thus :-
“(d) (1) in regard to the date of birth a declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government service, shall as against
the Government servant in question, be deemed to be conclusive unless he applies for correction of his age as recorded within 2 years from the date
of his entry into Government service. Government, however, reserves the right to make a correction in the recorded age of the Government servant at
any time against the interest of that Government servant when it is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book or in the history of services of a
gazette Government servant is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded with the object that the Government servant may derive some unfair
advantage therefrom.
(2) When a Government servant, within the period allowed, makes an application for the correction of his date of birth as recorded, an inquiry shall be
made to ascertain his correct age and reference shall be made in all available sources of information such as certified copies of entries in the
Municipal birth register, University or School age certificates, JANAMPATRI (horoscope) as the case may be. It should, however, be remembered
that it is entirely discretionary on the part of the sanctioning authority to refuse or grant such application on being satisfied and no alteration should be
allowed unless it has been satisfactorily proved that the date of birth as originally given by the applicant was a bona fide mistake and that he has
derived no unfair advantages therefrom. In case the matriculation certificate is available, the date of birth recorded in the certificate will be deemed to
be the correct age.
(3) The result of every such inquiry should in the case of Gazetted/Non Gazetted Government servants be briefly stated in their service cards/service
books and if correction is sanctioned, the fact should be reported to the Accountant General.â€
4(iv) In Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC 411, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that change in a
particular date of birth entered in the service register cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during
service. Even if there is good evidence to establish that recorded date of birth is erroneous, then also, correction cannot be claimed as a matter of
right.
Relevant extract from the judgment is as under :-
9. This Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not
sustainable. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath
Sitaram Kamble wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 428-29, paras
16-17 &19)
16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj
Kumar Agnihotri. In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date
of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.
17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that
he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court
observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades.
19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a large number of
employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the Court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home
Deptt.v. R. Kirubakaran reads as under: (SCC pp. 158-59, para 7)
'7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service]. It need not be
pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as
others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury,
inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which
time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotions forever. ... According to us, this is
an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect
of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is
made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only
plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person
concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time
fixed by any rule or order. ... the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book.'
10. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the
correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas it is held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 667
& 669, paras 8 & 12)
8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his
superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction
for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the
tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with
the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice
has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book.
Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth
after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of
right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No
court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh).
12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case
of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which
such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be
reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable,
more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since
Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-
bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book.
4(v) In the instant case, services of the petitioner were regularized as beldar on 11.01.2007. On the basis of Birth Certificate dated 13.12.2006
produced by the petitioner on 22.01.2007, his date of birth in the service record was entered as 07.04.1958. It was in 2014 that the petitioner
represented for the first time to his employer for correcting his date of birth entered in the service record. Four days prior to his superannuation on
30.04.2016, he moved the Court seeking correction in his date of birth entered in the service record. The petitioner definitely had not approached his
employer for correction in date of birth, recorded in his service record, within the time stipulated in the applicable rules (extracted above).
5. For all the aforesaid reasons, claim of the petitioner for correcting his date of birth in the service record could not have been entertained at the fag
end of his service, therefore, we find no infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. Hence, the instant appeal lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
