Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash Punia vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 September, 2008
CWP No. 17199 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 17199 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION: September 29, 2008
Om Parkash Punia
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The prayer made in the instant petition is for issuance of direction to the Municipal Committee, Panipat- respondent No. 2 to correct the date of birth of the petitioner. According to the record, the date of birth of the petitioner is 16.9.1950 and the request has been made to correct it to 2.9.1951. The petitioner admittedly entered the service of the Municipal Committee, Panipat-respondent No. 2 on 20.7.1976 on the post of Malaria Supervisor (P-2). At the time of CWP No. 17199 of 2008 2 appointment he has given his date of birth to be 16.9.1950 as per his Matriculation Certificate. During the period of his service he was sent to serve in the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board after abolition of the post of Malaria Supervisor from the Market Committee, Panipat-respondent No. 2 on 31.12.1999. He joined in the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board on 1.1.2000. On the ground that his date of birth according to the record of the Sub-Registrar, Birth and Death, Municipal Committee, Panipat, as per birth certificate dated 16.9.2008 (P-6) is 2.9.1951, a request for change in the date of birth has been made. The petitioner is to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation today i.e. 29.9.2008.
Having perused the paper book and keeping in view the nature of controversy, we are of the considered view that no change in the date of birth can be permitted. It is well settled that if a person on the eve of his retirement approach the Court for change in his date of birth, such a prayer cannot be accepted. In support of the afore-mentioned proposition reliance may be placed on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Bharat Cooking Coal ltd. v. Shib Kumar Dushad (2000) 8 SCC 696 wherein it has been pointed out that the date of birth of an employee is not only important but it also effects the employer and the co- employees. The quantum of retiral benefits to which an employee would be entitled has to be determined on the basis CWP No. 17199 of 2008 3 of length of service rendered by him. It has also been held that when dispute of such a nature has to be determined then the Courts have to keep in mind that change of date of birth long after joining the service particularly when the employee is due to retire shortly then it would upset the date recorded in the service record maintained in due course of administration. Such a request should not generally be accepted because it is the employee who had earlier supplied his date of birth which it continued in the service record for two-three decades. It has also been pointed out that his co-employees have also planned their career on the basis of expected vacancy which has to occur on the retirement of such an employee who seeks change in the date of birth. If the legitimate expectation of such an employees who are waiting for anticipated vacancy are defeated on account of extended period by changing date of birth then it would result in all unjust results. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Secretary and Commissioner Home Department v. R.Kirubakaran 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 155. The principle of estoppel would also be attracted because an employee has continuously represented the department about his date of birth which he seeks the department to change on a subsequent date. On the afore-mentioned proposition we place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. C.RamaSwamy (1997) 4 SCC 647. The petitioner had CWP No. 17199 of 2008 4 entered service on 20.7.1976 by representing that he was born on 16.5.1950 whereas now he claims that he was born about a year later on 2.9.1951. On that score also the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be entertained. Therefore, we find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JORA SINGH)
September 29, 2008 JUDGE
Pkapoor