Bhagwan Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard. This petition is filed by the petitioner on 08-07-2013. By the impugned order Annexure P/1, the respondents retired him on attaining the age of 62 years. Petitioner by preferring representation dated 15-11-2012 (Annexure P/4) just before his superannuation contended that his age is 54 years. In support of said contention he relied on horoscope (Janmpatri) and also relied on Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Others,

Shri Newaskar learned Dy. Government Advocate opposed the relief of petitioner.

Service record filed by the petitioner shows that his date of birth was recorded by the respondents as 24-01-1951. This was entered way back in the year 1976 when he entered the service in the department as Beldar. Petitioner was aware of the said date of birth but did not challenge it till 15-11-2012. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, has opined as under:

A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous.

The law of imitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire.

It is further held as under:-

A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, 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.

This is settled in law that the date of birth cannot be permitted to be altered at the fag end of career. Apart from this, the reason and basis for seeking such alteration is also without any basis. It is not based on any statutory certificate or marks-sheet etc. It is on the basis of hand written horoscope which cannot be a basis for alteration of date of birth of petitioner. Petition is also filed after retirement. The judgment cited by Shri Jain is based on different fact situation and cannot be mechanically applied in the present case. I find no substance in the petition, it is hereby dismissed.