Union of India vs Sharanjit Singh, Capt.

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This appeal by Union of India has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1994 dated 28.3.1995.

The plaintiffrespondent filed the suit for a declaration that his date of birth is 12.8.1942, but not 28.4.1940 as entered in the service record. The learned Sub Judge 2nd Class, Batala, dismissed the suit on the ground that the entry contained in Ex. P3 on the basis of which the plaintiffs seeks the correction of the date of birth is not proved to be that of the plaintiff and that he filed the suit after commissioned service of 27 years at the fag end of his service career. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur allowed the appeal holding that the date of birth of the plaintiff was 12.8.1942. Hence the Union of India filed this appeal.

Before entering into the factual controversy, it is pertinent to mention that the suit was filed on 23.7.1992 for correction of date of birth. It is also pertinent to point out that the plaintiff has not taken any step to have his date of birth corrected before filing the suit. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & others v. Shri Dinbandhu Majumdar and another, 1995(3) S.C.T. 126 : JT 1995(4) SC 23, that ordinarily High Court should not, in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ application/petition filed by an employee of the Government towards the fag end of his service seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his service record. The case of the plaintiff is that his correct date of birth is 12.8.1942, but it was wrongly entered in the service record as 28.4.1940.

The only evidence on which the plaintiff seeks to place reliance is that of Ex. P3. Ex P3 is a certificate issued on 31.1.1992 by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths. It shows that one son was born to Rabel Singh son of Tarlok Singh and the place of birth is shown as Saido Dera. It is also in the evidence of the plaintiff that he has got three brothers and four sister. He has not filed the birth certificates of his brothers. Therefore, it is not possible to correlate Ex. P3 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has miserably failed to connect Ex. P3 with his birth. Further the Union of India filed other documents, which are marked as Ex D1 to Ex. D20 which show that the plaintiff has always been giving his date of birth as 28.4.1940. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned District Judge erred in derceeding the suit of the plaintiff.

In Union of India v. Ram Sua Sharma, JT 1996(3) SC 72, the Apex Court has held that a Court or Tribunal at the belated stage cannot entertain a claim for the correction of the date of birth duly entered in the service record.

I accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned decree and judgment of the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur and restore the decree and judgment of the learned SubJudge 2nd Class, Batala.