Uttarakhand High Court
Itrat Ali vs Uttarakhand Transport ... on 27 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
27TH AUGUST, 2022
Special Appeal No.185 OF 2022
Itrat Ali ...... Appellant
Vs.
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Others
...... Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice)
This special appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 15.06.2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge in WPSS No.165 of 2022. By the
impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ-petition preferred by the appellant.
The petitioner had preferred the said petition to seek a
direction that his date of birth entered into the record of
respondent no.1 - Uttarakhand Transport Corporation
be changed from 02.06.1962 to 07.07.1967.
2. The appellant joined the service of the U.P.
Road Transport Corporation on 12.05.1987. He was
granted appointment on compassionate ground since
his father died in harness while serving in the said
organization. He continued to serve in the organization,
and for the first time he raised the issue with regard to
his date of birth wrongly entered into the record in the
year 2017. That is nearly 30 years after joining the
service. He sought to place reliance on school
certificates to contend that his actual date of birth is
07.07.1967. Even in the certificate produced by the
petitioner, the name of his father was recorded as
Busrat Ali whereas the petitioner claims that his father
is Nusrat Ali.
3. The representation of the petitioner was
rejected by the respondents firstly, on 17.06.2017 and
also by the General Manager (Administration) on
15.05.2018. He preferred the writ-petition only in
January, 2022.
4. In this background, the learned Single Judge
has dismissed the writ-petition observing as follows:-
"I have gone through the orders passed by Regional
Manager (Operations), Kathgodam and General Manager
(Administration). Valid reasons have been assigned for not
entertaining petitioner's request for correction of date of
birth. It is settled position in law that request for
correction of date of birth by an employee cannot be
entertained at the fag-end of service career. Petitioner
was appointed in the year 1987 and the request for
correction was made by him for the first time in 2015. It is
nobody's case that some interpolation was made in service
book so as to change petitioner's date of birth. It is also
admitted to the petitioner that he signed on the service
book, when it was prepared after his appointment, thus
petitioner could have pointed out to the Competent
Authority that his date of birth was incorrectly entered in
the service book. Since petitioner accepted the entry made
in the service book regarding his date of birth, for nearly
30 years, therefore the respondents were justified in
rejecting petitioner's request for correction of date of
birth, made in 2015.
In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined
to interfere in the matter.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed."
2
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the respondents did not update the
service record of the appellant every five years as was
required. He submits that due to the said lapse, the
appellant could not update his correct necessary date of
birth in the records of the respondents.
6. We find no merits in the submission.
7. Nothing prevented the appellant from seeking
correction of the date of birth soon after he joined the
service, if, according to him, his actual date of birth was
07.07.1967. Reliance placed by the appellant on the
school certificate is also of no avail since it does not
establish that the said certificate relates to the
appellant inasmuch, as, the name of the father in the
certificate is recorded as Busrat Ali, whereas the
appellant's father's name is Nusrat Ali. Apparently, the
appellant sought correction in the school records with
regard to his father's name, which was never granted.
It is well-settled that such request for change of date of
birth cannot be made at the fag end of the service. The
appellant has already superannuated in June, 2022.
8. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in
the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the special appeal
is dismissed.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
________________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 27th August, 2022
BS/SS
