Rama vs State Of Raj. And Ors. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1865 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rama vs State Of Raj. And Ors. ... on 6 February, 2026

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:6854]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6716/2015

Rama S/o Shri Wala Harijan, Age 53 Years, R/o Behind Jail
Sageada,District Dungarpur (Raj.).
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
     1. The State of Rajasthan through The Secretary. Department
       of Local Self Government, Secretariat Jaipur (Raj.).
     2. The Director Department of Local Self Government Jaipur
       (Raj.).
     3. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sagwada, District
       Dungarpur (Raj.).
     4. The    Chairman,          Municipal        Board,       Sagwada,     District
       Dungarpur (Raj.).
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :    Ms. Tuli Taniya Raman Ekta
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Aishwarya Anand



                 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

06/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:-

"1. That the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure-8) may kindly be quashed and set-aside. It may also be held that the petitioner is entitled for continuity of services with all consequential benefits and relief.

2. That the respondents may further be directed to made a necessary correction in the entry of date of birth of the petitioner in column No. 3 of the particulars of the government servant in the service record and it may kindly be declared that a date of birth of the petitioner is 30.4.1961 instead of 01.07.1955.

3. Any other appropriate order or direction that may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case kindly is passed in favour of the petitioner."

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:20:08 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6854] (2 of 10) [CW-6716/2015]

2. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition are that

the petitioner was duly and regularly appointed by the District

Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Churu, vide order dated

03.07.1989. Thereafter, the respondents themselves treated the

petitioner as a regular Class IV employee by granting him a

regular pay scale under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV

Service) Rules, 1963, preparing his service book, and extending to

him all consequential service benefits, including annual increments

and pay fixation, as admissible under the Rajasthan Service Rules,

1951. However, due to a blatant clerical error committed by the

office staff, the petitioner's date of birth was incorrectly entered in

the service book as 01.07.1955 instead of his actual and correct

date of birth, i.e., 30.04.1961, without any notice to or knowledge

of the petitioner. Upon coming to know of the said mistake for the

first time in November 2014, the petitioner promptly submitted a

detailed representation along with authentic documentary

evidence seeking correction of his date of birth. Despite the

availability of unimpeachable records and internal correspondence

acknowledging the error, the respondents failed to take any

corrective action and, relying solely on the erroneous entry,

prematurely and illegally retired the petitioner from service w.e.f.

30.06.2015 vide impugned order dated 30.01.2015. Being gravely

prejudiced by the arbitrary action of premature retirement and the

continued inaction of the respondents in rectifying the patent error

in his service record, the petitioner has been left with no

efficacious alternative remedy except to invoke the extraordinary

jurisdiction of the Court by filing the present writ petition.

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:20:08 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6854] (3 of 10) [CW-6716/2015]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

at the time of the appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari,

had submitted a declaration of date of birth by way of Affidavit

(Annexure-3) indicating his date of birth as 30.04.1961 and that

he was born at Talba, Sangwada. She submits that the

respondents have wrongly entered the date of the birth of the

petitioner as 01.07.1955 instead of 30.04.1961. She further

submits that the respondents in the reply have alleged that the

petitioner along with the joining report on 24.05.1989 had

produced a Health Certificate dated 19.05.1989 wherein he

mentioned his age as 34 years and as per the appearance, the

petitioner looked around 34 years. She submits that when

petitioner has submitted a declaration of date of birth by way of

Affidavit specifically indicating his date of birth as 30.04.1961,

there was no occasion for the respondents to consider his date of

birth as 01.07.1955.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically places

reliance upon Rule 8(a)(iii) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951

('Rules of 1951'), and submits that in cases where the post under

the Government is below the level of Secondary/Higher Secondary

or its equivalent, the date of birth furnished by the employee at

the time of appointment, is mandatorily required to be accepted,

however, in the present case, respondents failed to consider the

said affidavit. She further submits that in an identical matter,

Tulsi Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.

4819/2015), where the petitioner's date of birth had been

erroneously determined in the very same manner as in the

present case, the respondent department itself corrected the date

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:20:08 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6854] (4 of 10) [CW-6716/2015]

of birth and, on the basis of such statement, the said writ petition

was disposed of. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is

entitled to the same treatment on the principle of parity and

consistency, and any deviation therefrom would be arbitrary and

unsustainable in law.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits

that in the affidavit (Annex.3) furnished by the petitioner himself,

he indicated his date of birth as 30.04.1961; however, in the latter

part of the same affidavit, he stated his age to be 21 years, which

is wholly inconsistent with the said date of birth. He further

submits that the date of birth mentioned as 30.04.1961 is taken

into consideration, the petitioner ought to have been

approximately 28 years of age at the relevant time, whereas he

described himself as only 21 years old, thereby creating a serious

and material discrepancy in his own declaration.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the

petitioner had also submitted a Health Certificate dated

19.05.1989 along with his joining report, wherein, the

petitioner .declared his age as 34 years and, upon physical

examination, he was assessed to be approximately of the same

age and in view of such conflicting declarations made by the

petitioner at different stages, the respondents were left with no

alternative but to determine the age of the petitioner in

accordance with Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. He

submits that in cases where the exact date of birth of a

Government servant is not known, the procedure prescribed under

para 63 of the General Financial and Accounts Rules is required to

be followed and accordingly, by applying the said procedure and

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:20:08 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6854] (5 of 10) [CW-6716/2015]

rules, the respondents have rightly construed the petitioner's date

of birth as 01.07.1955.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents places reliance upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Burn Standard Co.

Ltd. vs. Dinu Bandhu Majumdar : (1995) 4 SCC 172 and

submits that it is a settled position of law that an employee cannot

be permitted to seek alteration of his date of birth at the fag end

of his service. He further submits that the judgment relied upon

by the petitioner is not inapplicable to the facts of the present

case, inasmuch as, the petitioner had himself furnished a

declaration of date of birth by way of Affidavit declaring his date of

birth as 30.04.1961. He further submits that it is not a case where

the petitioner, at the fag end of his service, is attempting to

introduce a completely new or different date of birth before the

respondents; rather, the issue has arisen solely due to the

inconsistent and contradictory declarations made by the petitioner

himself, therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioner is

misplaced and does not advance his case.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the material available on record.

9. Upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner

had submitted a declaration of date of birth by way of Affidavit

dated 07.12.1989 (Annexure-3) reflecting his date of birth as

"30.04.1961". However, it appears that on account of a

typographical error or miscalculation, the age mentioned at the

top as well as at the bottom of the affidavit is reflected as 21

years. The affidavit reads as under:

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:20:08 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6854] (6 of 10) [CW-6716/2015]

"शपथ पत्र मैं रामा पिता श्री वाला हरिजन उम्र 21 साल, पेशा हरिजन का निवासी सागवाड़ा तहसील सागवाड़ा जिला डूंगरपुर (राज.) शपथपूर्वक निम्नलिखित शपथपत्र पेश करता हूं।

1. मैं शपथपूर्वक निवेदन करता हूं कि मेरा जन्म तलबा सागवाडा में दिनांक 30.04.1961 को हुआ है। मेरी जन्म तारीख 30.04. 1961 है।

तारीख 07.12.1989 तस्दीक मैं रामा पिता श्री वाला हरिजन उम्र 21 साल, पेशा हरिजन का निवासी सागवाड़ा तहसील सागवाड़ा जिला डूंगरपुर (राज.) शपथपूर्वक तस्दीक करता हूं कि शपथपत्र हाजा की कॉलम नम्बर 1 में लिखी हुई तमाम इबारत मेरे ज्ञान से सही व सच है।

तारीख 07.12.1989 एस.डी.

रामा तस्दीक एस.डी.

मुन्सिफ एवं न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट सागवाड़ा (राज.)"

10 However, even if there was any discrepancy with regard to

the age of the petitioner at the time of his appointment, the

respondents were under a legal obligation to put the petitioner to

notice and afford him an opportunity of hearing directing him to

produce proof of his correct date of birth. However, in the present

case, the respondents, without affording the petitioner any

opportunity of hearing, proceeded to determine his date of birth in

accordance with the provisions laid down under Rule 7 of the

Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. From perusal of Rule 7 of the

Rules of 1951, it is reflected that the procedure prescribed in para

63 of the General Financial and Account Rules can be invoked only

in certain contingency and the same is reproduced as under:-

"Rule 7. xxx

(1) Age:- xxx

Notes

1. (1) If a Government servant is unable to State his exact date of birth but can State the year, or year and

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:20:08 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6854] (7 of 10) [CW-6716/2015]

month of birth the 1st July or the 16th of the month, respectively, may be treated as date of his birth.

(2) If he is only able to State his approximate age, his date of birth may be assumed to be the corresponding date after deducting the number of years representing his age from his date of appointment. Cases in which the date of birth has been deducted from the age at appointment or attestation by any other matter need not be reopened.

* 2 Deleted "

11. Thus the respondents could have adopted the procedure

prescribed in para 63 only in the case if the petitioner's exact date

of birth was not known. The contingency laid down in para 63 of

the General Financial and Account Rules prescribe that where the

government servant is unable to state his exact date of birth but

can state the year, or year and month of birth then in such case,

the date of birth can be assumed to be 1st July or 16th of the Month

respectively and in second contingency if the government servant

is unable to state his approximate age, his date of birth may be

assumed to be the corresponding date after deducting the number

of years representing his age from his date of appointment. The

case in hand is not so where the petitioner did not know the exact

date of birth, as he had in the affidavit dated 07.12.1989

(Annexure-3), specifically mentioned the date of birth as

'30.04.1961', therefore, the respondents have committed a grave

error while invoking the procedure prescribed in para 63 of the

General Financial and Account Rules. In order to examine the

controversy in hand, this Court also taken into consideration Rule

8A (2) (b) (iii) of the Rules of 1951, the same is reproduced as

under:-

"8A Age on first appointment ....

(2) xxx

(b) xxx

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:20:08 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6854] (8 of 10) [CW-6716/2015]

(iii) Where the minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment to a post under Government is below Secondary/ Higher Secondary or equivalent the date of birth shall be determined with reference to the certificate of date of birth issued by the Municipality or Panchayat or School according to the entry made in their respective records, and in the event of non-

availability of the aforesaid certificate, the date of birth declared by the applicant at the time of first appointment may be accepted. If the date of birth of a Government servant is not known and he is able to state the year of birth, the procedure laid down in Rule 63 of General Financial and Account Rules shall be followed."

12. Upon perusal of qualifications laid down the Rajasthan Class

IV Services (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules,

1963, the requisite qualification for the said post under rule 10

column IV of schedule for the post of Sweeper (Safai Karamchari)

is "Capacity to control persons", and the petitioner has been

afforded appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari and

admittedly the requisite qualification for the said post is not higher

than the qualification of Secondary/ Higher Secondary and thus,

as prescribed in the Rule 8 of Rules of 1951., the respondents

could not have deviated from the said rule as they were under an

obligation to take into consideration the affidavit submitted by the

petitioner at the time of the first appointment.

13. It is also apparent that the petitioner has preferred an

application before the respondents dated 14.11.2014 (Annex.5)

requesting them to make the necessary corrections in the date of

birth, however, no corrections were made by the respondents,

whereas, the similarly situated employee namely Tulsi, whose

name appears in the officer order dated 30.01.2015 (Annex.8),

wherein, her date of birth is also reflected as 01.07.1955 and the

same is the date of birth of the petitioner the respondents by way

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:20:08 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6854] (9 of 10) [CW-6716/2015]

of Annex.7 made a correspondence and as reflected from the

order dated 21.02.2024 passed in SBCWP No.4819/2015, the

respondents themselves made the due corrections, however, the

respondents did not extend the similar treatment to the petitioner.

Further, the respondents have averred in the reply that at the time

of submitting his joining report on 24.05.1989, the petitioner had

produced a Health Certificate dated 19.05.1989 wherein his age

was mentioned as 34 years; however, the said Health Certificate

has not been placed on record along with the reply. Even

assuming, for the sake of argument that such a Health Certificate

indicating the petitioner's age as 34 years was produced, nothing

prevented the respondents from affording the petitioner a

reasonable opportunity of hearing so as to enable him to place on

record the correct date of birth in case of any alleged discrepancy.

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the declaration of

date of birth by way of affidavit by the petitioner should have been

given precedence over Rule 7 of Rules of 1951 on account of

mismatch between the explicit date of birth and the age in years

stated by the petitioner. The apparent discrepancy called for

clarification rather than an adverse presumption. The respondents,

being instrumentalities of the State, were thus bound to adhere to

the principles of natural justice by putting the petitioner to notice

and affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing to explain

the clerical error and produce supporting material. The failure to

do so prior to invoking Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Service Rules,

1951, vitiates the entire exercise as being arbitrary and violative

of the principle of audi alteram partem.

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:20:08 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6854] (10 of 10) [CW-6716/2015]

15. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondents

proceeded to enter the date of birth of the petitioner as

01.07.1955 without affording him any opportunity of hearing and

without taking into consideration the affidavit produced by him at

the time of appointment, the order dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure-

8) is hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner however, as

the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation

during the pendency of the writ petition, no order of reinstatement

is required. Thus, the respondents are directed to treat the

petitioner to be in service till the actual date of superannuation

while considering his date of birth as 30.04.1961. The petitioner

shall be entitled to all emoluments and consequential service

benefits The respondents are directed to release the admissible

benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of

certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed in the

above terms. Stay application as well as any other pending

application, if any, stand disposed of.

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J

28-mithil/-

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 02:20:08 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)