Punjab-Haryana High Court
Makhan Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And ... on 9 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048007-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:048007-DB
(115) LPA-527-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 09.04.2024
Makhan Singh .......Appellant(s)
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R.S. Kalra, Advocate for respondents.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of the
order dated 19.01.2024 of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP-1183-
2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it was a
case where principle of res-judicata would apply and secondly the writ
petitioner cannot be allowed to change his date of birth in the service record at
the fag end of his service career. The change of date of birth from 04.05.1964
to 05.05.1965 was sought on the basis of the representations filed on
04.01.2022 (Annexure P-4) and 05.09.2023 (Annexure P-5).
The present case is a classic case where misuse of the liberty of
access to justice is being resorted to. At the first instance extension in service
was sought on account of the 60% disability to the eyes and extension of two
years in service was taken by filing CWP No.14536 of 2022 knowing very
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048007-DB
well that what is his date of birth. Having succeeded, the representations, thus,
as such were pressed for change of date of birth at the fag end of service.
It is not disputed that the appellant has joined as Lower Division
Clerk and was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 26.10.2010.
His normal date of retirement was 31.05.2022, but on the basis of disability
aspect his date of retirement has now come to 31.05.2024 and in view of the
order passed by learned Single Judge he, thus, continues to be in service. The
attempt as such to seek further extension on the basis of the correction of date
of birth in the service record has rightly been nipped in bud by the learned
Single Judge, whereby direction was sought to consider and decide his
representations.
The Apex Court in Government of India and another Vs. P.
Venkatesh, (2019) 15 SCC 613 has held that 'decide my representation
mantra' leads to unnecessary litigation and it is a classic case where the said
principle was sought to be invoked and has been rightly curtailed. The
appellant all along was very well aware as to what is his date of birth the
moment he entered in service and for all these long years never agitated for the
same. The learned Single Judge has relied upon plethora of judgments, which
read as "Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh", 1993 (2) SCC 162, "Burn
Standard Co. Ltd. vs Shri Dinabandhu Majumdar", 1995 AIR (SC) 1499,
"State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi", 2006 AIR
(SC) 2735, "Seema Ghosh vs Tata Iron & Steel Company", 2006 AIR (SC)
2936, "Ambika Kaul Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and
others", 2015 (3) SCT 350, "State of M.P. and other Vs. Premlal Shrivas",
2011 (9) SCC 664, "M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others vs Shyam
Kishore Singh", 2020 (3) SCC 411, "Director, Directorate of School
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048007-DB
Education vs V. Ranganathan", 2020(1) SCT 530and "Karnataka Rural
Infrastructure Development Limited vs T.P. Nataraja and others",
2021(4) SCT 162. Resultantly, in such circumstances we do not wish to add
to the bulk of the judgments.
Accordingly, in view of the settled principle, the present appeal is
hereby dismissed in limine. All pending civil miscallaneous application
including CM-1282-LPA-2024 for additional evidence, if any also stand
disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
09.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
3 of 3
