Rajasthan High Court
Madan Lal Lodha S/O Shri Gangadhar ... vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam ... on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 667/2022
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6744/2022
Madan Lal Lodha S/o Shri Gangadhar Lodha, aged about 58
years, R/o Teen Bad, Karauli. Presently working as Helper 1 st in
the O/o A.En. 1st, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Karauli.
----Appellant-Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan,
Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur through its Chairman Cum
Managing Director.
2. Managing Director, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Jaipur Discom, Jaipur.
3. Superintending Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Ltd., Karauli.
4. Assistant Engineer, 1st Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Karauli.
----Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Vijay Pathak Advocate.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
26/05/2022
Heard.
This appeal is directed against order dated 13.05.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by
the appellant seeking permission for change in his date of birth,
has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in
the year 1982, when date of birth of the appellant was recorded in
(2 of 3) [SAW-667/2022]
the service book, he was not aware and he continued in service
without knowing that such a date of birth has been recorded.
Later on, when process of verification started, the appellant
submitted a certificate, which was not accepted. Learned counsel
would further submit that change in date of birth in extraordinary
situations is permissible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of High Court of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Sanyasi Rao
(Civil Appeal No. 6964 of 2004 decided on 01.12.2011) as
also by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kavita
Choudhary Vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur & Another (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
No. 1700/2017 decided on 01.11.2017).
The law in this regard is well settled. The date of birth,
which has been recorded at the time of entry into service, is
presumed to have been recorded on the basis of the declaration
given by the employee himself. Service book of the appellant
recorded date of birth as 01.07.1962. The appellant is not a rustic
villager or a person who cannot read and write. Admittedly, the
appellant was VII pass. Service books are prepared only on the
basis of declaration given by the employees duly signed by them.
After long period, when process of verification started, in the garb
of verification, the appellant sought to change his date of birth,
which was not permissible in law in view of the authoritative
pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited and
Others Vs. T.P. Nataraja and Others, 2021 (4) SCT 162
(SC), relied upon by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the
order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any
interference.
(3 of 3) [SAW-667/2022]
The judgments, which have been cited by the appellant,
do not come to his aid because in the case of High Court of
Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Sanyasi Rao (supra), the issue had
different factual premise relating to judicial officer.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
MANOJ NARWANI /85
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
