Orissa High Court
WA/384/2017 on 8 February, 2021
Author: S.Panda
Bench: S.Panda
WA No.384 of 2017
Misc. Case No.596 of 2017
4. 08.02.2021 This matter is taken up through video conferencing.
This Misc. Case has been filed for condonation of delay in
filling the present appeal.
Heard.
Considering the grounds taken, the delay of 22 days in filing
the appeal is condoned.
The Misc. Case stands disposed of.
........................
S.Panda, J.
..........................
K.R.Mohapatra, J.
WA No.384 of 2017
5. 08.02.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.13764 of 2010 was filed challenging erroneous entry of date of birth in the service book of the petitioner by opposite party No.5-Dr.Surendra Nath Acharya, which was allegedly done behind the back of the petitioner (appellant herein). The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 24.08.2017. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/petitioner preferred this appeal.
3. The appellant could have availed the opportunity to approach the authority for correction of the wrong recording of date of birth in his service book at the earliest. At the fag end of the service career, 2 claim for change of date of birth is not entertainable, that too after superannuation from service, the appellant approached this Court. In this regard law is well-settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411, wherein it has been held as follows:-
8. In the above background it is to be noticed as to whether the consideration as made by the High Court is justified. The learned counsel for the respondent with specific reference to para 10 in the order [Shyam Kishore Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 3061] of the learned Single Judge referred to the aspect wherein the learned Single Judge has taken note of the representation made by the respondent in the year 2009 and the verification that was secured by the appellants from the Bihar School Examination Board. Though such reference is made, in our opinion, the same was not appropriate in the present facts when three decades had elapsed from the date of employment. The position is well established that if a particular date of birth is entered in the service register, a change sought cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during entire service. In the instant facts the position is that the respondent entered service on 1-3-1982. The date of birth entered as 4-3-1950 has remained on record from the said date. The requirement to submit the nomination form indicating the particulars of the family and the nominee was complied with and it was submitted by the respondent on 25-5-1998. In the said nomination form the date of birth of the employee was required to be mentioned, 3 wherein the respondent in his own handwriting has indicated the date of birth as 4-3-1950.
Apart from that fact, the learned Additional Solicitor General would also point out that since there was a change in the method of maintaining the service register, all the employees were provided an opportunity to verify and seek for change in the service record in the year 1987. At that stage also the respondent did not seek for any change. Therefore, in that circumstance, when the opportunity available at the first instance in 1987 had not been availed and thereafter on 25-5-1998 when the respondent himself in the Provident Fund nomination form had indicated the date of birth as 4-3-1950 which corresponds to the date of birth entered in the service register as on the date of commencement of the employment, merely because a verification was made from the Bihar School Examination Board and even if it was confirmed that the date of birth was 20-1-1955 such change at that stage was not permissible.
9. This Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable......"
(emphasis supplied )
4. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the writ Court. Even otherwise, having gone through the order impugned herein, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is just and proper and the reason given for rejection of the prayer of the appellant is illustrative and 4 exhaustive one.
5. Accordingly, the writ appeal merits no consideration. The same is dismissed as such.
5.1 As the lock down period is continuing for COVID-19 learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print thereof at par with the certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court's notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.
........................
S.Panda, J.
..........................
K.R.Mohapatra, J.
ss