Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Rama Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
W.P. No. 8163/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 8163 of 2020
Between:-
SMT. RAMA BAI D/O SHRI VITTHAL,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVERNMENT SERVANT HOUSE NO.211
NEAR SHAHPURA MASJID BHARAT
NAGAR ROAD, BHOPAL, DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHOK SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS
1. DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN, AREA
HILL BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT NEW BHOPAL DIVISION 12
2.
DAFTAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT UP DIVISION NO. 2
3.
SECTION 12 SED NO. 13 JAWAHAR CHOWK
12 DAFTAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated
19.03.2020 (Annexure-P/5) by which she has been made to superannuate treating
W.P. No. 8163/2020
her date of birth as 01.07.1958 whereas the correct date of birth is 01.07.1966. It
is also prayed that the matter may be referred to the medical board to conduct
ossification test in respect of her age and thereafter the petitioner made to be
superannuated.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner was
appointed on the post of unskilled labour on 24.04.1985. She was regularized vide
order dated 08.12.2016. Thereafter, she was granted increments from time to time.
The petitioner was appointed on 24.04.1985. Whereas, the service book was
prepared on 24.09.1998 and at that time no proof with regard to date of birth was
submitted by the petitioner, therefore, the respondents authority on their own
entered the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.07.1958. This fact came to the
knowledge of the petitioner only on 08.09.2017, thereafter, she preferred a
representation. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 30.10.2017.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actual date of birth of the
petitioner is 01.07.1966 and only with the purpose to harass the petitioner she is
being made to retire w.e.f. 30.06.2020. Hence, being aggrieved, the petitioner has
filed this petition.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per
the service record maintained with the respondents, date of birth of the petitioner
is 01.07.1958. Based on these records, the petitioner stood superannuated w.e.f.
30.06.2020. The petitioner never raised a dispute with regard to the incorrect date
of birth during her entire service career. Now, on the verge of retirement, the
dispute has been raised, which is not permissible. He further stated that the
petition is hopelessly barred by time, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed
on the ground of delay and laches.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the Apex Court
decision in the case of Eastern Coalfields Limited and others Vs. Ram Samugh
Yadav and others, reported in (2020)3 SCC 421, to contend that prayer for
change in the date of birth at the fag end of service career is impermissible.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the Apex court
decision in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others Vs. Shyam
W.P. No. 8163/2020
Kishore Singh, reported in (2020)3 SCC 411, in which it is held that the writ
petition filed by the respondents four years after his retirement seeking restoration
of his appointment, the same cannot be done and prayer for change in date of birth
in service register cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting
the same to be correct during entire service. It was further held that merely
because verification was made from Bihar School Examination Board by
appellant on receiving representation in the year 2009 and even if it is confirmed
that date of birth was 20.1.1995 such change at that stage was not permissible and
the indulgence shown by the High Court was misplaced.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined as unskilled labour on
24.04.1985. The representation of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2017,
even then she did not choose to challenge the order till 2020. 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 the entire service. Further the petitioner did not avail the
judicial remedy immediately on entering the service. Instead, in the year 2020,
when the petitioner was to retire, just before she preferred the representation for
correction in the date of birth.
10. In such circumstances and in the light of the judgment of the Apex court in
the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra), no indulgence can be shown to
the petitioner. The respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner
which is in accordance with the settled legal position.
11. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit or substance in the claim of
the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismissed at admission stage
itself.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
ashish
Digitally signed by ASHISH
KUMAR LILHARE
Date: 2022.03.26 11:51:54 +05'30'
