Mansha Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.—Mansha Singh joined irrigation Department of the State of Punjab as Clerk as a result of his selection by the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection on Board, Punjab. In course of time, he rose to the post of Superintendent Grade I. On 9.8.1994, he filed suit for declaration to the effect that he was born on 4.10.1941 and that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded as 27.12.1939 in his service book and that it be corrected to 4.10.1941 and that he be declared enti-tled to continue in service on the basis of the date of birth as entered in his matriculation certificate which is 4.10.1941 and that he is entitled to superannuate on 31.10.1999 and for mandatory injunction directing the state of Punjab to correct his date of birth in the service book from 27.12.1939 to 4.10.1941. Defendant State of Punjab contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that 27.12.1939 was recorded as his date of birth in the service book not inadvertently but on his own showing. At the time of submission of application form to the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab for recruitment to the post of Clerk, he gave his date of birth as 27.12.1939. Apart from that, he verified the date of birth as 27.12.1939 recorded in his service book on 8.6.1961 and then on 20.9.1971 when the same was re-attested. He did not raise any protest at that time that his date of birth as 27.12.1939 was incorrectly recorded in the service book and that his date of birth actually was 4.10.1941. In the early years of his appointment, before the verification and filling of the service book page 1, there was lengthy correspondence between the plaintiff, Punjab University, Chandigarh and the Department on the issue that the date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate was not correct and as per the birth entry in the record of Civil Surgeon, Ambala, the date of birth of the plaintiff was 27.12.1939. Request was also made by the plaintiff to the Punjab University for the necessary change of date of birth in matriculation certificate. However, as application to the University was made after the stipulated date, Syndicate of the University rejected his application. plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from saying that his date of birth recorded in the service book was wrong. plaintiff is taking up this stand now due to greed which is that he wants to prolong his stay in service. On the date of entry into the government service, plaintiff was less than 18 years of age. If 4.10.1941 is taken as the correct date of his birth, he could not have entered service as on 28.1.1959 and he could not have applied for the post of Clerk in the year 1958. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

Whether the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 4.10.1941 and not 27.12.1939? OPP

Whether before filing the suit a legal and valid notice u/s 80 CPC was served on the defendants ? OPP

Whether the suit is within time ? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue as alleged ? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of a declaration and mandatory injunction as proved for ? OPP

Relief.

Vide order dated 17.12.1996, plaintiffs suit was dismissed by Senior Subordinate Judge, Chandigarh in view of his finding that the plaintiff was really born on 27.12.1939 and not on 4.10.1941 and that 27.12.1939 was correctly recorded as the date of his birth in his service book. It was found that the plaintiff was estopped by his act and conduct from saying that he was bom on 4.10.1941 when he himself gave his date of birth as 27.12.1939 at the time when he applied for the post of Clerk and at the time when his service book was prepared. It was found that 27.12.1939 was recorded in the record of Civil Surgeon, Ambala as the date of his birth which was correct and 4.10.1941 as the date of his birth recorded in his matriculation certificate was wrong.

plaintiff went in appeal. Appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 3.1.1998. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff! has come up in further appeal to this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record.

plaintiff applied for the post of Clerk through application Ex.D1 to the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab in which he gave date of his birth as 27.12.1939. This application is dated 11.3.1958. This application was duly signed by him. He was selected for the post of Clerk and joined on 28.1.1959. If he had given 4.10.1941 as the date of his birth, he would not have been eligible to apply for the post of Clerk on 11.3.1958 as when he joined the post of Clerk, he was less than 18 years of age if we take 4.10.1941 as the date of his birth. 27.12.1939 as the date of his birth was verified by him on 8.6.1961 and then on 20.9.1971 in his service book Ex.D2. In the register of births maintained by Civil Surgeon, Ambala, he is shown born on 27.12.1939. plaintiff made request for the change of date of birth in the matriculation certificate to the Punjab University from 4.10.1941 to 27.12.1939. This application was rejected by the Syndicate of the University as he had made this application after the stipulated time. In application Ex.D4 addressed to the Registrar, Irrigation Branch, Chandigarh he had written that when he passed the matriculation examination, he was unable to join govt. service per the date of birth recorded therein. He applied to the Director of Education, Punjab, Chandigarh to get the date of birth corrected. According to the instructions of the Registrar, Punjab University, Chandigarh, Director of Education directed him to get the required documents from the Divisional Inspector of Schools, Ambala Cantt. Defendants asked the plaintiff on 11.4.1960 to submit the original matriculation certificate to ascertain the date of birth. He didn''t submit the original or copy of the matriculation certificate. He gave reply Ex.D4 that he was unable to join service per the date of birth as recorded in his matriculation certificate. Instead, his correct date of birth was 27.12.1939. He had further stated that he had produced birth certificate from the office of Civil Surgeon, Ambala to the effect that his date of birth was 27.12.1939 but the Punjab University had not made correction in the matriculation certificate. Civil Surgeon, Ambala issued certificate to the effect that date of birth of the plaintiff was 27.12.1939. plaintiff wrote letter Ex.D7 that he had sent his case to the Registrar, Punjab University for making necessary change in his matriculation certificate. He requested the Registrar, Punjab PWD (IB), Chandigarh to wait for the outcome of his letter to the Punjab University. Punjab University refused to correct his date of birth to 4.10.1941 saying that such a request could be entertained upto 30.3.1959 in case of those who had matriculated in 1957 or earlier to that. It is thus clear that he had himself been toiling to have his date of birth corrected to 4.10.1941. If he had relied upon 4.10.1941 as the date of his birth, he could not have been eligible to apply for the job of a Clerk on 11.3.1958. He would not have been eligible for being appointed as Cierk on 28.1.1959. Not only this, he himself gave his age as 27.12.1939 to his employer which was entered in his service book. He verified this date of birth on 8.6.1961 and then on 20.9.1971 as 27.12.1939. He himself produced the date of birth certificate from the record of Civil Surgeon, Ambala in which his date of birth was shown as 27,12.1939. plaintiff got into job when he was not at all eligible. On 11.3.1958 he was 16-1/4 years old if we take 4.10.1941 as the date of his birth. He applied for the post of Clerk on 11.3.1958 by giving 27.12.1939 as his date of birth and thus claiming to be eligible. He joined service about 2 years earlier than the age of his eligibility by giving 27.12.1939 as his date of birth. He is estopped from claiming that he was bom on 4.10.1941 and is thus entitled to remain in service for a period of 1 year and 10 months more when he has enjoyed similar period in the beginning of his career. He rose from his slumber when he was at the fag end of his career. He allowed 27.12.1939 as the date of birth to hold the field for 30 years. Why should he have slept over for so long? It appears that he took up the matter of seeking correction of his date of birth when he had put in almost the entire period of service and only a fringe remained when there was no risk involved in making ihis prayer. If he had made this prayer earlier, he could have run the risk of being thrown out of job. It was held in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others v. Dinabandhu Majumdar and another in Civil Appeal No. 4725 of 1995 : 1995(3) SCT126 (SC) arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13332 of 1995 by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the importance of the date of birth of an employee given to his employer and accepted as correct by the tatter and entered in the service and leave record of the former cannot be under-estimated. This is for the reason that the employee''s service with the employer has to be necessarily regulated according to such date of birth. Therefore, when a portion is taken into service on appointment, he would be required by his employer to declare his correct date of birth and support the same by production of appropriate certificate or documents, if any. Even where the persons so appointed fail to produce the certificates or documents in proof of their date of birth, they would be required to affix their thumb impression or signature in authentication of their declared ages of dates of birth. It has further been held that when on the basis of such declaration made or certificates produced by the employee, an entry is made of his date of birth in his service and leave record to be opened, that will amount to acceptance by the employer of such date of birth, as correct, be it the Government or its instrumentality.

It was held in Union of India v. Ramsua Sharma 1996(2) RSJ 147 that "a Court or tribunal at the belated stage cannot-entertain a claim for the correction of date of birth duiy entered in the service record. It is thus clear that the Court should not entertain a stale claim for correction of date of birth of an employee". In this case, there is no equity in favour of the plaintiff. He cannot be allowed to prolong his stay in service by 1 year and 10 months when in the beginning when he joined he was nol even eligible if 4.10.1941 is taken to be the date of his birth. He claimed eligibility showing his date of birth as 27.12.1939. On 11.3.1958 when he applied for the post of Clerk, he was about 16 years and 3 months old. He cannot be allowed to say now that he was not born on 27.12.1939. When he applied for the post of Clerk and got it, he would not have been eligible if he had given 4.10.1941 as the date of his birth. He cannot be allowed to have double benefit.

For the reasons given above, this appeal fails and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.