Darshan Lal vs State of Madhya Pradesh

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s):-

(i) That the impugned order (Annexure P-1) may kindly be quashed & respondent kindly be directed to continue the petitioner in service till the age of superannuation with all service benefits.

(ii) That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation may kindly be passed favor of the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that earlier he was appointed as a daily wager and subsequently, he was classified and his service book was prepared. When the petitioner came to know about the incorrect date of birth mentioned in the service book, then he approached the authorities for correction of his date of birth in the service book, however, the same has not been done. It is submitted that in the service book, his date of birth has been mentioned as 18-5-1958, whereas his correct date of birth is 10-10-1961.  It is submitted that although the respondents have got his marksheet verified from the concerning school, even then, he has been retired from service by treating his date of birth as 18 -5-1958 on the assumption, that the petitioner has attained the age of 62 years. Thus, it is prayed that on the basis of the correct date of birth i.e., 10-10-1961, the petitioner has not attained the age of 62 years and therefore, he may be permitted to continue to remain in service, till he attains the age of superannuation i.e., 62 years.

Considered the submissions made by the Counsel of the petitioner.

The petitioner has not challenged the date of birth i.e., 18-5-1958 which is mentioned in his service book. The petitioner must be aware of the fact that the challenge to the date of birth at the fag end of service or after the retirement is not maintainable. However, the petitioner lost sight of the fact that unless and until the date of birth mentioned in service book is corrected, he cannot be permitted to continue in service after 30-5-2020.

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka, reported in (1970) 3 SCC 624 has held as under:-

4.........A public servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the service record and may apply for correction of the record. But until the record is corrected he cannot claim that he has been deprived of the guarantee under Article 311(2) of the Constitution by being compulsorily retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the footing of the date of the birth entered in the service record.

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 423 has held as under :

In State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan this Court was clearly of the opinion that the government servant should not be permitted to correct the date of birth at the fag end of his service career. The Court, in very strong terms, observed as under: (SCC p. 307, para 7)

"7. ... The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. It is common phenomenon that just before superannuation, an application would be made to the Tribunal or court just to gain time to continue in service and the Tribunal or courts are unfortunately unduly liberal in entertaining and allowing the government employees or public employees to remain in office, which is adding an impetus to resort to the fabrication of the record and place reliance thereon and seek the authority to correct it. When rejected, on grounds of technicalities, question them and remain in office till the period claimed for, gets expired. This case is one such stark instance. Accordingly, in our view, the Tribunal has grossly erred in showing overindulgence in granting the reliefs even trenching beyond its powers of allowing him to remain in office for two years after his date of superannuation even as per his own case and given all conceivable directions beneficial to the employee. It is, therefore, a case of the grossest error of law committed by the Tribunal which cannot be countenanced and cannot be sustained on any ground."

In Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran the Court again reiterated the legal position that the courts have to be extremely careful when application for alteration of the date of birth is filed on the eve of superannuation or nearabout that time. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 160, para 9)

"9. ... As such whenever an application for alteration of the date of birth is made on the eve of superannuation or near about that time, the court or the tribunal concerned should be more cautious because of the growing tendency amongst a section of public servants, to raise such a dispute, without explaining as to why this question was not raised earlier."

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.

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.

Two decades ago this Court in Govt. of A.P. v. M. Hayagreev Sarma has held that subsequent claim for alteration after commencement of the Rules even on the basis of extracts of entry contained in births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886, was not open. Reliance was also placed on State of U.P. v. Gulaichi, State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, Bhadrak (R&B) Division v. Rangadhar Mallik, Union of India v. Harnam Singh and Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran.

Rule 84 of M.P. Financial Code reads as under :

'84. शासन के अधीन किसी सेवा अथवा पद पर प्रत्येक नवनियुक्त व्यक्ति को भरती के समय अपनी जन्म तिथि की जहॉं तक हो ऐसे अभिलेखों के साथ जो उस तिथि की पुष्टि करते हों जैसे मैट्रीकुलेशन सर्टिफिकेट, म्युनिसिपल जन्म तिथि सर्टिफिकेट, आदि के साथ क्रिश्चियन ऐरा में, घोषणा करना चाहिए। यदि वास्तविक जन्म तिथि ज्ञात न हो तो लगभग क्या तिथि है यह बताया जाना चाहिए। सेवा विवरण, सेवा पुस्तिका अथवा अन्य अभिलेख जो शासकीय सेवक के संबंध में रखे जायें उनमें वास्तविक जन्म तिथि अथवा नियम 85 के अंतर्गत निश्चित की गई तिथि अंकित की जाना चाहिए। इस तरह एक बार अंकित की गई जन्म तिथि अन्तिम रूप से नियत तिथि समझी जावेगी और केवल लिपिकीय त्रुटि के मामलों को छोड़कर ऐसी घोषणा में किसी भी प्रयोजन के लिय तदुपरांत कोई संशोधन मान्य नहीं किया जावेगा।'

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of in State of M.P. v. Mathura Singh reported in 2003 (1) MPHT 148 (DB), has held as under:-

"Rule 84 of M.P. Financial Code (Volume I) provides that date of birth once recorded must be deemed to be absolutely conclusive and except in the case of a clerical error no revision of such a declaration shall be allowed to be made at a later period for any purpose whatsoever."

The Copy of the Service Book of the petitioner has been filed and it is clear that there is no overwriting on the date of birth of the petitioner.  The date of birth mentioned in the service book is also countersigned by the competent authority. Further, the petition is completely silent as to when a prayer for correction of his date of birth in the service book was made for the first time. Even the copy of the representation which has been placed on record is subsequent to his retirement. It is submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer Water Resources Sub-Division No.2 Joura, Distt. Morena by its letter dated ........ (Not Clear in the document and the Counsel for the petitioner was also not in a position to clarify that in which year the same was written) had sought verification report from the Principal of the concerning School. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the Principal had ever verified the School Leaving Certificate. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner must have sought alteration of his date of birth at the fag end of his service and this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain the writ petition which has been filed after the retirement of the petitioner. Further, in absence of any challenge to the date of birth mentioned in the service book, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion, that no case is made out warranting interference. Ex consequenti, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.