Swaranpal Singh Lamba vs Director General Of Civil ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 751 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner by this suit writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith change the date of birth of petitioner in the Airline Transport Pilot's license (ALTP) No. 1530 in the office of respondent No. 1, i.e., Director General of Civil Aviation. The petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 19.2.2001, by which the petitioner's application for change of date of birth from 7.12.1942 to 7.9.1945 was rejected.

2. Petitioner was born in Rawalpindi, West Pakistan and had migrated to Delhi in 1947 at the time of partition along with his parents. It is claimed that petitioner's parents, who were illiterate had got him admitted to Ramjas High School and at the time of admission gave his date of birth as 7.12.1942, by mistake instead of 7.9.1945. Petitioner passed Higher Secondary Examination in 1959. In the school records as well as the Higher Secondary Certificate, his date of birth is recorded as 7.12.1942.

3. Petitioner joined the Indian Air Force in September 1963, as a flight Cadet and passed out as a commissioned officer in May 1965. The petitioner attained the rank of Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force. He took premature retirement on 31.7.1990.

4. Petitioner after his retirement obtained an Airline Transport Pilot's license on 31.10.1990, bearing No. 1530. This license also reflects the date of birth of the petitioner as 7.12.1942.

5. The petitioner claims that his parents through out their life maintained that his date of birth had been wrongly given by them at the time of his admission to School due to some mistake and that he was younger than what appeared on record. Petitioner states that being inquisitive and anxious to know his actual date of birth, tried to confirm the same from the Municipal records in Rawalpindi, West Pakistan, where he was born. Through a friend of his brother, he was able to secure a birth certificate from the Rawalpindi, Municipal Corporation on 25.5.1996. As per the certificate, a male child had been born to his parents on 7.9.1945, who is claimed to be the petitioner.

6. Petitioner on the basis of the said original birth certificate together with its English translation requested the respondents vide a representation dated 10.6.1997, to change the date of birth in the license. Petitioner also filed an affidavit with the respondent No. 1 and got published an advertisement in the newspapers. He requested for a change of date of birth to be effected in the ALTP license No. 1533. Petitioner was advised to submit the municipal record and also get a correction made in the Air Force records. As the petitioner had already retired from the Air Force, he informed respondent No. 1 that it was not possible to get the date of birth changed in the Air Force records. Petitioner was then advised to get his date of birth changed in the school certificate. Petitioner has made several representations but the Director General of Civil Aviation declined the requested to have the change of date of birth made on the basis of municipal certificate.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, submits that the petitioner has furnished the most authentic proof in terms of the birth certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Rawalpindi. He is, therefore, entitled to have a change of date of birth recorded in the license. Mr. Sandeep Sethi assails the letter dated 19.2.2001, declining the request, as being a cryptic one, without disclosing any reasons. Learned counsel further submits that this was a genuine case, where the petitioner's illiterate parents, who had 8 children, in confusion gave the wrong date of birth for petitioner. Petitioner has already retired from Air Force service and is presently employed with M/s. Sahara Airlines. As per the original date of birth, petitioner would be attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years in December 2002. However, there is no embargo on a person to hold ALTP license, subject to periodical medical examination to test the fitness to fly the aircraft. The only prohibition is that a person after the age of 60 years is not permitted to fly a revenue flight i.e. with cargo or passengers. Petitioner submits that he is being discriminated against and unfairly treated in as much as the respondents permitted change of date of birth in the license, of two pilots Mr. U.C. Gupta and Mr. D.P. Verma on their furnishing evidence of actual date of birth.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent, Ms. Anupam K. Sanghi, objected to the maintainability of the petition, which raises disputed questions of facts. Reliance was placed on TATA Iron and Steel Ltd. reported at . She submits that the request for change of date of birth, has been belatedly sought. It is not free from doubt. She questions the authenticity of the certificate obtained from the Municipal Corporation of Rawalpindi. She submitted that the petitioner at the fag and of his career was seeking to have the change of date of birth effected. Learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that the petitioners as per the petitioner's own averments if his change of date of birth was to be permitted, would have passed the Higher Secondary Examination at the age of 14 years and joined the 1st class of school, when he was 2 to 3 years which was highly unlikely. In these circumstances, she submitted that respondent No. 1 was fully justified in declining the request for change of date of birth.

9. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings and documents on record, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition. The request being made for change in the date of birth is highly belated. As per the petitioner's own averment in the writ petition, his parents had always maintained that his date of birth had been wrongly given at the time of admission and that he was younger than what was recorded. If this indeed was the situation, it is not understood why the petitioner chose not to make any attempt to have the same rectified earlier, at least immediately after he had become an adult. Petitioner continued in service and superannuated without seeking to have his date of birth changed. This was despite his parents belief that his age was erroneously recorded. In fact, even after retirement from Air Force, petitioner joined M/s. Sahara Airlines. It is only while working with M/s. Sahara Airlines, with impending superannuation that he chose to seek a change in the date of birth.

10. The legal position in this regard is well settled. Reference is invited to State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan reported at , wherein the Court held "This Court has repeatedly been holding that the inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth. The Government servant having declared that his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. It is common phenomenon that just before superannuation an application would be made to the Tribunal or Court just to gain time to continue in service and the Tribunal or Courts are unfortunately unduly liberal in entertaining and allowing the Government employees or public employees to remain in office, which is adding impetus to resort to the fabrication of the record and place reliance thereon and seek the authority to correct it."

11. Again in State of Orissa and Ors. v. Shri Ramnath Patnaik reported at 1997 (3) Scale 552, the Court disregarded subsequent evidence sought to be produced in respect of change in date of birth. In the cited case, a suit for declaration regarding the date of birth being 1.1.1925 and not 1.1.1921, was dismissed by the Trial Court. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The High Court declined to entertain the second appeal. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal holding "When entry was made in the service record and when he was in service, he did not make an attempt to have the service record corrected. Therefore, any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail. The High Court, therefore, has committed manifest error of law in refusing to entertain the second appeal."

Again in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and Ors. v. R. Kirubakaran reported at 1994 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 155 the Supreme Court held "If the date of birth of a public servant, is corrected only on basis of a report submitted by a Revenue Officer after holding an inquiry, according to us, it will introduce uncertainty, in public services. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that correction of the date of birth of public servant is permissible, but that should be done in a casual manner. Any such order must be passed on materials produced by the public servant from which the irresistible conclusion follows that the date of birth recorded in the service book was incorrect. While disposing of any such application, the Court or the tribunal, has first to examine whether the application has been made within the prescribed period under some rule or administrative order. If there is no rule or order prescribing any period then the Court or tribunal has to examine, why such application was not made within a reasonable time after joining the service."

12. In the instant case, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner, who on becoming an adult and who was aware of the alleged belief of his parents about his age being wrongly recorded took no steps either at the time of joining the service or during the entire service career to have the date of birth changed. He has chosen to seek a change in date of birth only after his retirement from Air Force and at the fag end of his career in private employment. Besides, the certificate on which reliance is placed only shows a male child being born to the parents of the petitioner. There is nothing filed on record by way of the affidavit of the petitioner's parents or other evidence that it related to the petitioner and not anyone of his brothers. Besides, as noted earlier, if the change of date of birth as is sought is to be given effect to, it would mean that the petitioner passed out his higher secondary at the age of 14, which is unlikely. There is merit in the plea of the respondent that the attempt of the petitioner is to somehow give a further lease of life to his career in flying with M/s. Sahara Airlines. The writ petition, raises disputed questions of fact.

In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.