Shivkumar Rajauria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.

This petition is directed against the order, Annexure P-1, dated 2.1.2014, whereby the respondents have declared that the petitioner will attain the age of superannuation on 31.12.2014.

Shri C.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner''s date of birth is wrongly recorded in the service book as 15.12.1954, whereas it should be 15.12.1955. He submits that by Annexure P/6 dated 26.4.1972, a representation was submitted before Secretary of the Education Board to alter the date of birth. Another representation is preferred on 29.8.2008 (Annexure P/7). Petitioner has preferred a detailed representation to the official respondents on 5.3.2014. It is submitted that the petitioner''s date of birth be corrected.

The prayer is opposed by Shri Rathi.

The core issue is whether at the december of career of the petitioner, the date of birth can be permitted to be altered. As per petitioner''s own saying, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded in the service book on 15.12.1954. The petitioner entered services on 31.1.1985. The petitioner is seeking alteration of date of birth on the basis of birth certificate, Annexure P-2 (issued on 23.1.2014), certificate issued by the Headmaster, Annexure P-3 (no date of issuance is mentioned) and Annexure P/4 (Primary School Certificate). However, Annexure P-5, the certificate issued by the statutory Board shows that the petitioner''s date of birth is 15.12.1954. In the opinion of this Court, this is settled in law that at the fag end of the career the date of birth cannot be permitted to be altered.

A Division Bench of this Court in State of M.P. Vs. Mathura Singh and Another, opined 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 Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. C. Rama Swamy and others, , has made it clear that bona fide clerical error would normally be one where an officer has indicated a particular date of birth in his application form or any other document at the time of his employment but, by mistake or oversight a different date has been recorded. However, in the present case, it is nobody''s case that any such bona fide clerical error has occurred in the service record.

Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, , 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 limitation 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.

In this view of the aforesaid legal position, it is clear that there is an inordinate delay in seeking correction in date of birth. The error in date of birth is neither based on clerical error nor a bona fide one. Thus, no mandamus can be issued for alteration of date of birth of the petitioner in the service record at this stage.

Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost.