Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Singh Malik vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 19 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153507
RSA-2987-2001 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2987-2001 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 19.11.2024
Mohinder Singh Malik ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate for
Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondents.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
against the judgment and decree dated 08.12.1998 passed by learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'),
whereby his suit was dismissed as well as the judgment and decree dated
13.03.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat (hereinafter
referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), whereby the appeal filed against the
aforesaid judgment and decree dated 08.12.1998, was also dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant/plaintiff was an
employee of Haryana State. In the service record of the appellant/plaintiff,
his date of birth was entered as 10.11.1946, which is based on his
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153507
RSA-2987-2001 (O&M) -2-
matriculation certificate. As per pleadings, in the record maintained by
Chief Medical Officer (for short, CMO), Rohtak, the name of the
appellant/plaintiff was wrongly entered by the concerned Chowkidar as
Joginder Singh son of Dhan Singh son of Amin Lal, resident of Pipli Khera,
Tehsil and District Sonepat, in place of Mohinder Singh Malik, which was
the correct name of the appellant/plaintiff. Appellant/plaintiff moved an
application before the District Magistrate, Rohtak, for the correction of the
same in the birth register maintained by the CMO's office, Rohtak. The
District Magistrate ordered the CMO, Rohtak for correction of the name of
the appellant in the birth register as Mohinder Singh Malik instead of
Joginder Singh. Then he moved an application before the Registrar, Punjab
University, Chandigarh for making necessary correction in the date of birth
in the matriculation certificate, but the application of the appellant/plaintiff
was declined and thus, the appellant/plaintiff submitted the matriculation
examination certificate at the time of his recruitment as Assistant Sub-
Inspector in police, in which, his date of birth was entered as 10.11.1946,
whereas, he requested the respondents/defendants to treat his date of birth as
14.09.1949. Therefore, he filed a civil suit, which was dismissed by the
learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 08.12.1998. The
appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the learned First
Appellate Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 13.03.2001. Hence, the
present regular second appeal.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153507
RSA-2987-2001 (O&M) -3-
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that both the courts
i.e. learned trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court have
dismissed the suit as well as appeal filed by the appellant without
appreciating evidence on record and on the ground of delay and latches.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
civil suit as well as appeal filed by the appellant have rightly been dismissed
by the learned trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court. He relied
upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Punjab &
Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Vs. Megh Raj Garg and another,
2010(6) SCC 482 and The General Manager, M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines
Vs. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors., 2024
AIR Supreme Court 2527. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be
dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of the case in hand.
6. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant himself had
written his date of birth as 10.11.1946 in his character, service role while
joining his service. Ex.D4 is matriculation certificate of the appellant,
wherein his date of birth has been shown as 10.11.1946. As per the
averments in the civil suit, the name of the appellant in the record of the
District Magistrate, Rohtak, was corrected on 05.06.1968, wherein the date
of birth was also written. Therefore, on 05.06.1968 itself, the appellant was
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153507
RSA-2987-2001 (O&M) -4-
aware about his date of birth to be written as 10.11.1946. The appellant
passed his matriculation examination in the year 1963 from the Punjab
University, Chandigarh, and his name in birth record maintained by CMO's
office was corrected and he also moved an application to the Registrar,
Punjab University, Chandigarh, for making a necessary correction, but his
application was declined. The application moved by him to the department
was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. He filed CWP No.10721
of 1989 in this Court, which was also dismissed and after expiry of 22 years,
the suit for correction of his date of birth was filed. The appellant was
appointed as a Sub-Inspector. He himself filled his date of birth as
10.11.1946 while joining the service. He is a literate person and cannot be
believed that he did not come to know about his date of birth and regarding
his right to get it corrected within the reasonable period. A perusal of the
record further shows that the appellant passed his matriculation examination
in the year 1963 and joined the service in the year 1971 and at the time of
joining, he himself had written his date of birth to be 10.11.1946 and he got
the job on the basis of that date of birth certificate. For the first time, he
made a representation to the department in the year 1983 i.e. after the expiry
of 12 years after joining his service. In 1968, when his name was corrected
in the birth certificate, then he was aware that his date of birth was
mentioned as 10.11.1946. Even at that point of time, he did not filed any
civil suit for correction of his date of birth. For the first time, he approached
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153507
RSA-2987-2001 (O&M) -5-
this Court in the year 1989 by filing Civil Writ Petition, which was
dismissed with the observation to approach the Civil Court.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Megh Raj Garg's case (supra)
held that being a law graduate, respondent-judicial officer must have been
aware of the date of birth recorded in his matriculation certificate. He would
have immediately after joining the service made an application to the
university for change of his date of birth recorded in matriculation
certificate. He waited for more than ten years after entering into service and
submitted application to university for effecting change in the date of birth.
It is further held that he applied for change of date of birth recorded in his
service book much beyond the time limit of two years specified in the rule.
Therefore, the Apex Court held that the High Court or the State Government
did not have power, jurisdiction or authority to entertain such representation
made by respondent after more than twelve years of entering into service.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
8. In The General Manager, M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines's case
(supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that respondent initially declared
his date of birth on the basis of which, he got employment, cannot seek
change of date of birth belatedly. Principles of estoppel would come into
play.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment
and decree dated 08.12.1998 passed by learned trial Court as well as the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153507
RSA-2987-2001 (O&M) -6-
judgment and decree dated 13.03.2001 passed by learned First Appellate
Court, therefore, the same are upheld. The present appeal is hereby
dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. Decree sheet be drawn.
11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
19.11.2024
Virrendra
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
