Arun Monga, J
1. Petitioner herein is before this Court seeking correction / modification of his date of birth, which has been entered incorrectly in his service book. He further seeks a direction to the respondents to continue his service until 30.11.2028, considering his actual date of birth, 09.10.1968, and not to retire him effective from 29.11.2024, at the age of 56 years and 1 month.
2. Briefly speaking, the relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are as follows :
2.1 Petitioner was initially appointed as a Class IV employee on a temporary basis, effective from 21.08.1986, for a period of one year, which was later extended. After finding the petitioner's services satisfactory, the respondent department confirmed his position, effective from 01.09.1987, through an order dated 07.07.1990. The petitioner has since been continuously employed by the respondent and was even granted Selection Grade.
2.2 Upon joining, the petitioner submitted his School Transfer Certificate (T.C.), which correctly stated his date of birth as 09.10.1968. However, due to an error, the respondent department entered the incorrect date of birth, 03.11.1964, in his service record.
2.3 Despite making several verbal requests to the concerned authorities for the correction of his date of birth in the official records, the petitioner’s appeals were ignored. In 2021, he submitted a written request asking for the correction, but the respondents failed to act on it.
2.4 During an audit by the Audit and Accounts Department, it was observed that the petitioner’s date of birth in the Employment Exchange list from Udaipur was correctly listed as 09.10.1968, while the service book erroneously stated 03.11.1964, suggesting that the latter was a clerical mistake.
2.5 The petitioner’s correct date of birth is 09.10.1968. As an employee of a Government of India undertaking, the petitioner is subject to retirement at the age of 60, which will occur on 31.10.2028. However, the respondent department informed the petitioner that his date of retirement is 29.11.2024. The petitioner is currently about 56 years and 1 month old. Moreover, official documents such as the petitioner’s Aadhar card, PAN card, driver’s license, and voter card all correctly reflect his date of birth as 09.10.1968. Hence, the present petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case record.
4. Reference may be had to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar, (1995) 4 SCC 172, relevant part whereof is reproduced herein below :
“10. Entertainment by High Courts of writ applications made by employees of the Government or its instrumentalities at the fag end of their services and when they are due for retirement from their services, in our view, is unwarranted. It would be so for the reason that no employee can claim a right to correction of birth date and entertainment of such writ applications for correction of dates of birth of some employees of Government or its instrumentalities will mar the chances of promotion of their juniors and prove to be an undue encouragement to the other employees to make similar applications at the fag end of their service careers with the sole object of preventing their retirements when due. Extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, in our considered view, is not meant to make employees of Government or its instrumentalities to continue in service beyond the period of their entitlement according to dates of birth accepted by their employers, placing reliance on the so-called newly-found material. The fact that an employee of Government or its instrumentality who has been in service for over decades, with no objection whatsoever raised as to his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct, when all of a sudden comes forward towards the fag end of his service career with a writ application before the High Court seeking correction of his date of birth in his Service Record, the very conduct of non-raising of an objection in the matter by the employee, in our view, should be a sufficient reason for the High Court, not to entertain such applications on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay and laches. Moreover, discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court can never be said to have been reasonably and judicially exercised if it entertains such writ application, for no employee, who had grievance as to his date of birth in his “Service and Leave Record” could have genuinely waited till the fag end of his service career to get it corrected by availing of the extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation, in holding, that ordinarily High Courts should not, in exercise of their discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ application/petition filed by an employee of the Government or its instrumentality, towards the fag end of his service, seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his “Service and Leave Record” or Service Register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement.
13. When we turn to the case of Respondent 1, he did not object to his date of birth or age entered in his “Service and Leave Record” with Appellant 1 during 36 years of his service. When the writ application filed by Respondent 1 was entertained by the High Court, it is difficult to find that it has used its discretion in the matter either judiciously or reasonably, and for that reason alone the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court under appeal by which the order of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed calls to be interfered with and set aside.”
5. On a Court query being posed to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner remained a mute spectator throughout his career after joining the service, as no action was taken for the correction of his date of birth, no satisfactory response has come forth.
6. It is only at the eleventh hour of his impending superannuation, i.e., the slated date of retirement being 29.11.2024, that a writ petition has been straightaway filed before this Court in 2024.
7. There is a bald assertion in the petition sans any documentary proof that in the year 2021, the petitioner had filed an application in the department seeking correction of his date of birth. However, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner remained silent all these years, which clearly shows that he had acquiesced to his fait accompli.
8. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
