Delhi High Court
Director Of Education vs Raj Rani on 8 October, 2012
Author: D.Murugesan,Chief Justice
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision:-8th October, 2012
+ LPA 675/2012
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shariq Mohammad, Adv.
versus
RAJ RANI ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
: D. MURUGESAN, CJ (ORAL)
1. This appeal, at the instance of the Director of Education, challenges
the order dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The
respondent was employed as a part time water woman in a school under the
Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. As she did not
have proof of her date of birth, she was sent for medical examination.
Considering her physical appearance, the medical report suggested her date
of birth as 1.9.1938 which date was recorded by the appellant herein in the
service register. Her services were regularized on 14.7.1988. At that time,
she filed an affidavit stating that her date of birth was 2.4.1947 which fact is
not in dispute. Under the impression that her date of birth might had been
altered/corrected on the basis of the said affidavit, she did not pursue the
matter further with the appellant. However, on coming to know that her date
of birth was still maintained in the records as 1.9.1938, even before a period
of three years of retirement on 31.9.1998, she made an application to correct
the date of birth entry in the service record on the basis of school certificate.
The said request was rejected by the appellant on 8.5.1995 and consequently
the respondent was superannuated on 31.9.1998. Hence, the respondent
raised a dispute before the Labour Court in I.D. No. 310/1999. The Labour
Court factually found that on the basis of the affidavit filed by the
respondent at the time when she was regularized in service and in the
absence of any specific provision stipulating the time for making an
application for alteration/correction of date of birth under the rules, and the
application for such correction of date of birth was made prior to three years
of retirement, accepted the case of the respondent and accordingly set aside
the order of the rejection and answered the dispute in favour of the
respondent-workman, for correction of date of birth as 22.06.1943 as per
date of birth entered in the school certificate.
2. The said award was questioned in a writ petition unsuccessfully as the
learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the award as it was factual
findings by Labour Court.
3. The above order is put in issue in the instant appeal. We have
extensively heard learned counsel for the appellant. The law on the
correction of date of birth is well settled to the extent that a Government
servant entering into service should file an application for correction in date
of birth within the period prescribed under the rules, if any, applicable to
such Government servant or within a reasonable period in the absence of
rule prescribing the period. This law has been reiterated keeping in mind
that a Government servant cannot fall back at the fag end of the service to
seek for alteration of date of birth and the Government servant would be
diligent to have the date of birth corrected on the basis of sufficient materials
and evidence at the earliest points of time.
4. In the case at hand, there is no rule prescribing the period of limitation
for the respondent to apply for correction of date of birth. In that event, the
Court should consider as to whether the request for alteration of date of birth
was made within a reasonable period and with supportive materials. In the
given set of facts, we find that the date of birth was recorded in the register
as 1.9.1938 on the basis of the medical report which was given on physical
appearance of the respondent. That report was necessitated in the absence of
any document at the relevant point of time. Nevertheless, when the service
of the respondent was regularized, she filed an affidavit stating that her date
of birth was 2.4.1947 which fact had not been disputed by the appellant
herein. The respondent, being only a water woman, would have believed
that the said affidavit was accepted and her date of birth was corrected.
Having noticed that the same was not done by the appellant, she made an
application three years prior to her date of superannuation. The period of
seven years from 1988 till 1995 we consider reasonable keeping in mind the
status of the respondent who was only a water woman. What can be the
reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case. The
respondent was initially appointed as water woman (Class-IV) during the
year 1972 temporarily. Her services were regularized only on 14.07.1988
on which date she was asked to produce proof of her date of birth. As she
could not furnish any document, she filed an affidavit stating that her date of
birth was 22.06.1943 and there are no materials to show that the said
affidavit was not accepted. When she came to know even before retiring
that she has a school certificate to prove her date of birth as 22.06.1943, she
made an application. Considering the above facts, particularly she was only
a Class-IV employee and as of now retired, we find that the application was
filed within reasonable period.
5. That apart, she had produced a certificate from a school in support of
the request for alteration of date of birth. The above are all factual aspects
and both the Labour Court as well as the learned Judge have concurrently
found the facts in favour of the respondent. In the school certificate
submitted by the respondent, the date of birth has been mentioned as
22.06.1943 which date alone has been taken note of by both the Labour
Court and learned Single Judge. Sitting in appeal, we are not inclined to go
into those materials and re-appreciate the same. Hence, we do not find any
infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
OCTOBER 08, 2012
pk
