AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner states that he has been serving in the respondent department for a long time and as he was reaching the date of superannuation, he
started making efforts to complete his service records so that there is no hitch in getting the pension after he is superannuation. He submits that
according to him, there was still one year when he started approaching the officers to get his service book completed and during this process he
cannot to know that on first page of his service book, cutting has been done against the coloumn of date of birth. He submits that his date of birth
on first page of the Service book was recorded as 20th of August, 1995 BK, which was incorrect, therefore, he made a representation to the
respondents. In this representation, according to him, he submitted that his date of birth has not been correctly recorded and has not been
authenticated by the head office. He further submitted that there was a cutting on the date of birth. He submits that a certificate had been issued to
him by the Headmaster of Govt. High School, Raipur, Jammu on 17.5.1996 wherein his date of birth has been shown as 20th of August, 1996 BK
which, when converted into Christian era, comes to 2nd of December, 1939. Accordingly he submits that on the basis of his actual date of birth he
has to retire in December, 1997 and not in December, 1996. He has annexed the certificate issued by the Headmaster of Government High
School, Raipur, Jammu.
2 When the representation was made by the petitioner, respondent No.2, in his letter stated that since a dispute has been raised regarding the date
of birth, therefore, he is referring the matter to the Administrative Department. Respondent No.2 also solicited early action by the Administrative
Department, in the matter.
According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 did not decide the matter and he filed a writ petition in this court being SWP No. 13121 96. This
petition was disposed of on the first date by this court with the observation, which read:
Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Lehar has limited his prayer. He only wants a direction to the Chief Engineer concerned to consider petitioner's grievance
with regard to the correction of his date of birth and to decide the matter within a time frame.
In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of and the petitioner may approach the Chief Engineer concerned, who shall dispose of petitioner's
case, about the dispute of his date of birth, within two weeks from the receipt of this order and pass appropriate orders thereon, in
accordance)/with rules.
Petitioner submits that alothough the time granted by this Court had expired, no decision was taken by the respondents and when the petitioner
was about to retire, he approached this court again. '5. On these facts, the petitioner prays that respondents be directed to correct his date of birth
on the service book and record it as 20th of August, 1996, which corresponds to 2121939 instead of 20th of August, 1995 BK. Objections have
been filed by the respondents.
One of the objections taken by the respondents is that writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court
that relief of chage of date of birth cannot be granted by Courtsin a routine manner particularly when the change is sought at the fag end of the
service. Respondents have also produced the photocopy of the service book of the petitioner which shows that the petitioner was appointed as an
attendant vide order No.230710 dated 771956. The recorded date of birth of the petitioner is 20th of August, 1995 BK, which corresponds to
year 1938 Christian era. Now he wants that his date of birth should be recorded as 2nd of December, 1939 Christian era. When the petitioner
entered in service i.e. in 1956, he was only 18 years of age, which was the permissible age for entering into Government service, may be he was
not of 18 years at that service, he showed that he was of 18 years and now after taking the benefit he wants to change again his date of birth so
that he gets the benefit of one years service.
If we take it that actual date of birth of the petitioner was 2nd of December, 1939, than he was not eligible to enter into service in the year
1956, as he would have been only of 17 years in 1956.
The petitioner has already served for more than fourty years i.e. the maximum period one can serve the Government as the minimum age
required to enter into Government service is 18 years and maximum till he attains 58 years of age. In any case petitioner is not a looser. The cutting
to which petitioner has referred, which occurs in the first page of the service book, is only in the figures and not in the words.
In view of the judgement of the Supreme Court, reported in SCC1997(4) page647, Union of India Vs. C.Rama Swamy & Ors., I don't have
any doubt in my mind that this petition needs to be dismissed which is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner shall be treated to have been retired on
31st of December, 1996.