AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Yadav, J.—With consent heard finally. Being aggrieved of recording of date of birth as 29.6.1953 in the service record, the petitioner gave the representation for its correction on 29.6.1955. The representation was turned down by order dated 24.6.2010. It is this order which is being challenged vide this petition.
Petitioner entered into service on 28.2.1974. When he was recruited in 25th Battalion Special Armed Force, 29.6.1953 was recorded as date of birth in his service book.
That, in the year 2004 petitioner raised the dispute as to wrong recording of his date of birth in the service record. Whereon, by letter dated 11.2.2004, the petitioner was called upon to furnish the original mark-sheet of Cass V, VIII and the original transfer certificate of Class VIII, to ascertain the error, if any, in recording the date of birth.
Record reveals that instead of furnishing the originals, petitioner furnished duplicate obtained on 29.11.2004, 22.12.2004 and 14.5.2003, respectively. It appears that since the petitioner did not furnish the originals, no cognizance was given to the duplicate. The petitioner, thereafter stood stand still till 2010 when again the petitioner racked up the issue whereon, the competent authority in view of Rules, 84 and 85 of Madhya Pradesh Financial Code referred the matter to the Treasury Officer. The Treasury Officer vide communication dated 24.12.2010, Annexure R/2, opined that since no clerical error has been noticed in recording the date of birth of the petitioner the same is unalterable in view of Rules 84 and 85 of M.P. Financial Code. The petitioner''s representation was accordingly rejected by impugned order.
Rules 84 and 85 of the M.P. Financial Code provides for:
Every person newly appointed to a service or a post under Government should at the time of the appointment declare the date of his birth by the Christian era with as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence, such as, a matriculation certificate, municipal birth certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known, an approximate date may be given. The actual date or the assumed date determined under Rule 85 should be recorded in the history of service, service book or any other record that may be kept in respect of the Government servant''s service under Government. The date of birth, once recorded in this manner, must be deemed no revision of such a declaration shall be allowed to be made at a later period for any purpose whatever.
(1) If a Government servant is unable to state his exact date of birth, but can state the year, or year and month of birth the 1st July or the 16th of the month, respectively, may be treated as the date of his birth.
(2) If he is only able to state his approximate age, his date of birth may be assumed to the corresponding date after deducting the number of years representing his age from his date of appointment.
(3) When a person who first entered military employ, is subsequently employed in a Civil Department, the date of birth for the purpose of the civil employment should be the date stated by him at the time of attestation. In case where the documents referring to the previous military service do not give the exact date of birth but only the age stated at the time of attestation, the date of his birth should be deduced with reference to that age according to the method indicated in sub-rule (2) above.
The question is, in absence of the original documents and that no steps were taken by the petitioner for rectification of his date of birth immediately on entering into service whether respondents action can be found fault with.
In State of Haryana Vs. Satish Kumar Mittal and Another, ) it has been held:
As recorded above, it has been held time and again that the application for correction of date of birth is also to be looked into from the point of view of the concerned department and the employees engaged therein. The other employees have expectations of promotion based on seniority and suddenly if such change is permitted; it causes prejudice and disturbance in the working of the department. It is, therefore, quite correct for the State to insist that such application must be made within the time provided in the rules, say, two years, as in the present case.
This being so, the courts should not have entertained the claim of the first respondent belatedly and beyond the period provided in the rules. The rules, in the instant case, all throughout required such application to be made within two years. Therefore, the courts clearly erred in finding fault with the appellant for allegedly applying the Notification of 13.8.2001 retrospectively which was not the case over here.
In the case at hand in absence of any clerical mistake in recording the date of birth and in absence of any material on record indicating that immediately on entering into service the petitioner took steps to get his date of birth corrected in service record, no direction can be issued to the respondents when the petitioner is to retire in 2013. In the result petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.