Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 July, 2022
LPA No.418 of 2022(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No.418 of 2022(O&M)
Date of decision: 06.07.2022
Gurdeep Singh
... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present: Mr. Bikramjit Singh Randhawa, Advocate,
for the appellant.
***
ARUN PALLI, J.
This is an intra-court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters
Patent, against an order and judgment dated 10.02.2022, whereby the writ
petition preferred by the appellant assailing the orders declining his prayer to
correct his date of birth in the service record has since been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
appointed as Driver on contractual basis on 28.09.1998. Even though, in the
service book maintained by the department manually, the date of birth of the
appellant was recorded as 20.12.1964, but in the online service book, his
date of birth was mentioned as 20.12.1962, which was incorrect.
Accordingly, the appellant moved the authorities vide representation dated
20.12.2020, to carry out the necessary corrections. Upon which, the
authorities wrote to the Punjab School Education Board (for short, 'the
Board') for verification of his date of birth. However, as the Board failed to
furnish the requisite information, the authorities rejected his claim and he
1 of 4
retired from service on 31.12.2020. Though, subsequently, vide letter dated
22.03.2021, the Board verified that the earlier certificate issued to the
appellant, showing his date of birth as 20.12.1962, was incorrect and the
Board had already issued a duplicate certificate on 19.03.1998 with his
correct date of birth. But, despite that being so, his claim was rejected by the
authorities, for by that time he had already retired and there was no
explanation as to why he chose to remain quite for almost 23 years. It is
urged that as the learned Single Judge completely over-looked the response
submitted by the Board: that date of birth of the appellant was 20th
December, 1964 and not 20th December, 1962, thus, the impugned order and
judgment is unsustainable.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused
the record.
Concededly, the appellant was appointed as Driver on
contractual basis on 28.09.1998. The record shows that his application dated
25.05.1998, seeking appointment, was accompanied by a copy of driving
licence, matriculation certificate issued by the Board, detailed marksheet of
matric, and a character certificate issued by Government High School,
Racheen, District Ludhiana, and all these documents showed his date of
birth as 20.12.1962. Not just that, even in the order dated 23.11.2011, vide
which services of the appellant were regularized, his date of birth was
mentioned as 20.12.1962. The appellant never questioned the said position
for nearly two decades, when on 22.09.2017 he alleged to have represented
to the authorities for correction of his date of birth. It is his own case that the
said representation was not responded to, but, significantly, the appellant
neither made any grievance nor complained against the purported indecision
2 of 4
by the authorities. For the appellant was slated to retire from service on
31.12.2020, he moved the authorities on 09.12.2020 for correction of his
date of birth on the basis of a duplicate certificate issued by the Board,
showing his date of birth as 20.12.1964. Accordingly, vide office letter
No.PHSC/ Admn/4302, dated 17.12.2020, the authorities sent the said
certificate to the Board for verification. But, as concededly no response was
furnished by the Board, the appellant, as per his date of birth recorded in the
service record, retired from service on 31.12.2020. As regards the response
by the Board, post retirement of the appellant, the authorities reconsidered
the matter but rejected his claim as albeit the Board had already issued him a
duplicate certificate (vide serial No.9T5U-115755) on 19.03.1998 (before
his appointment), showing his date of birth as 20.12.1964, yet he failed to
produce the same while joining service. And, it was nearly after 23 years of
his appointment, at fag end of his service, he made a claim for correction of
his date of birth, which was not feasible and would have entailed multiple
administrative complications. Thus, in the given circumstances, the only and
the inevitable conclusion that could be recorded was: the appellant had no
one else to blame but himself. Further, as observed by the learned Single
Judge, the Supreme Court in Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. and others v.
Shyam Kishore Singh, 2020(3) SCC 411, has held that a request for change
of date of birth in service record at fag end of service is not sustainable:
"7 ...Therefore, in that circumstance, when the
opportunity available at the first instance in 1987 had
not been availed and thereafter on 25.05.1998 when the
respondent himself in the Provident Fund Nomination
Form had indicated the date of birth as 04.03.1950
which corresponds to the date of birth entered in the
3 of 4
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 20.01.1955
such change at that stage was not permissible."
In the wake of the position as sketched out above, we are
dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order and judgment rendered by
the learned Single Judge. The appeal being bereft of merit is, accordingly,
dismissed.
( Ravi Shanker Jha ) ( Arun Palli )
Chief Justice Judge
06.07.2022
Rajan
Whether speaking / reasoned: YES
Whether Reportable: NO
4 of 4
