Hasai Ram vs State of Punjab and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 22.1.2007 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 4.5.2007.

The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration and for correction of his date of birth. He pleaded that he was born on 5.6.1943 and was entitled to remain in service as Chowkidar upto 30.6.2003 when he attains the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. He also pleaded that the order dated 28.2.1998 retiring him from service was void.

The respondents contested the suit and pleaded that the appellant had joined the service on 1.9.1974 and that during the entire period of service he had never supplied the school leaving certificate to them and that solely on the basis of a document which he had submitted stating his date of birth as 15.2.193 8, employment was given to him by the Executive Engineer, Abohar Division, Abohar where he served till 1.9.1979 and accordingly he has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 28.2.1998.

Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration for correction of his date of birth in the departmental record and to all other benefits claimed which become due on account of correction of his date of birth?OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration that the order dated 28.2.1998 is void and is, therefore, liable to be set aside?OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?OPD

Relief.

The trial Court after appraisal of evidence before it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant.

In appeal, the findings of the learned trial Court were affirmed.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the Courts below to contend that reliance has been placed on Ex.D1 which is not an affidavit and was merely a scrap of paper and did not even have the requisite stamps. Besides, there is no verification. He contended that such a document could not have been accepted in preference to the school leaving certificate. On the strength of these contentions he contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and warrant interference and, therefore, the appeal ought to be accepted.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that during the entire period of service school leaving certificate was never produced by the appellant. He further contended that his service-book was prepared and he served the department long enough from 1.9.1974 to 28.2.1998, but at no stage of service he made an attempt to get his service-book rectified and it is only after retirement that the matter was agitated.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the appeal is without any merit. The appellant served the department from 1974 of 1998, but at no stage he agitated his claim regarding the date of birth being incorrect. As an incumbent in service it was expected of him to know from his service-book the date of retirement which necessarily would have been on the basis of the entry of birth recorded therein. That having not been done, it cannot be expected that a person would realise that he had school certificate showing his date of birth to be different than the one which has been recorded in the service-book. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the findings of the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse to warrant any interference. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for the determination of this Court.

Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.