Uttarakhand High Court
Buddhi Ballabh Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 29 April, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal, Pankaj Purohit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No.346 of 2022
29TH APRIL, 2024
Buddhi Ballabh Bhatt .....Appellant.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant :Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the State :Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned
Additional C.S.C. along with
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned
Brief Holder.
Counsel for the Respondent :Mr. N.S. Pundir, ld. Counsel.
nos.2 to 5
CORAM:-
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT
The Court made the following-
JUDGMENT
Per: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT
This appeal emanates from the judgment and
order of learned Single Judge passed in WPSS No.1092
of 2020 (Buddhi Ballabh Bhatt vs. State of Uttarakhand
& others) dated 30.09.2022 by which the writ petition
filed by the appellant seeking correction of his date of
birth in service records has been dismissed.
2. The facts which are necessary to dispose of
the appeal are recapitulated as under:-
Appellant was appointed as Line Coolie in the
Department of Electricity Distribution Division Tehri
Garhwal on 18.06.1984. In the year 1991, the appellant
came to know that his date of birth is not correctly
mentioned in the service book as per his educational
certificates submitted by him at the time of his joining
in service. He made a representation before the Sub-
Divisional Officer Electricity, Tehri Garhwal dated
10.01.1991 to correct his date of birth in the service
record, but of no result.
2. It is the case of the appellant that when he
joined service in the year 1984, prior to that, appellant
had appeared in high school examination in the year
1981, but he failed and a mark-sheet of his being 'fail'
was issued by the Board on 04.08.1981. According to
the appellant, at the time of his joining, he submitted
his 'fail' mark-sheet dated 04.08.1981, his transfer
certificate in which his date of birth was correctly
mentioned as 02.05.1966. But due to clerical error of
the respondent authorities, in the service book his date
of birth was wrongly transcribed as 02.05.1964. The
appellant-writ petitioner subsequently, passed his high
school examination in the year 1990 and thereafter,
intermediate in the year 1993.
3. It is also the case of the appellant that since
1991 he regularly kept on writing to the respondent
no.5, under which he was working, to correct his date of
birth, but no heed was given by the respondent on the
same. The record of the writ petition is repleted with
such applications moved and received by the
respondent on 10.09.1991, 11.03.1992, 12.07.1994
and 29.12.2017. From the record, it is reflected that
some time, in between the years 2000-2002, the
Divisional Engineer wrote letters to the Executive
Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division U.P. Power
Corporation Limited to send for the original copies of
mark-sheet and other documents attached to the
service book of the appellant so that the date of birth of
the appellant could be verified, as in the service book,
appellant's date of birth is mentioned as 02.05.1964
while in the high school certificate, the copy of which is
attached in the service book, his date of birth is written
as 02.05.1966. But, when this exercise did not get
favorable respite to the appellant, he was constrained to
file WPSS No.2688 of 2019 (Buddhi Ballabh Bhatt vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others) which was disposed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court on 10.12.2019
directing the competent authority to take decision on
appellant's representation.
4. After the order dated 10.12.2019, passed by
learned Single Judge in the earlier round of writ
petition, the appellant submitted a representation for
correction of his date of birth in service book which was
rejected by the competent authority vide order dated
25.02.2020. The appellant left with no option, moved to
this Court by filing WPSS No.1092 of 2020 challenging
the order dated 25.02.2020, so far as it relates to the
appellant and further a direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to
correct his date of birth as 02.05.1966 instead of
02.05.1964 in his service book.
5. This writ petition was contested by the
respondent by filing a counter affidavit defending
rejection of representation mainly on the ground that
the application for correction of date of birth could not
be entertained by the employer at the fag end of the
service.
6. The rejoinder affidavit was filed by the
appellant-writ petitioner before the writ Court wherein it
was stated that the application for correcting his date of
birth was not moved by him at the fag end of his
service, rather the petitioner had been re-agitating this
issue, regularly, with the respondent authorities and
submitted his documents, in which, his date of birth was
recorded as 02.05.1966 since way back in the year
1991 after knew about his wrong date of birth entered
in service book and he passed his high school. The
petitioner reiterated his case in the rejoinder affidavit as
put-forth by him in the writ petition.
6. The learned Single Judge after hearing the
parties dismissed the writ petition by impugned
judgment and order dated 30.09.2022 mainly on the
ground that a request for correction of his date of birth
cannot be entertained at the fag end of service career of
an employee. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid
dismissal of the writ petition, appellant has preferred
this intra-Court appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously
argued that it is not a case where the request was made
by appellant for correction of his date of birth at the fag
end of his service career, rather, since the date he
found that his date of birth has wrongly been
transcribed in the service book, he kept on writing to
the respondent no.5 to correct the date of birth. He
further submits that it is the mistake of the respondent
authorities who wrongly recorded the date of birth of
the appellant in the service book. The appellant had
submitted his 'fail' mark-sheet of high school dated
04.08.1981 in which he failed and the transfer
certificate at the time of joining, which has been
annexed with the service book, contained his correct
date of birth i.e. 02.05.1966. This mark-sheet is
annexed with the service book, but despite that, no
correction was made by the respondent authorities
despite several requests made by the appellant who
was a Class-3 employee and earlier posted as Line
Coolie.
9. It is further argued by learned counsel for the
appellant that appellant passed his high school in the
year 1990 and intermediate in the year 1993 and the
mark-sheet of having passed high school was also given
to the respondent-department which contained correct
date of birth i.e. 02.05.1966, however, the fact of the
matter is that the service book was not corrected,
despite several requests made by the appellant. He
further argued that it is only when after his request was
not paid any heed, the appellant approached this Court.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent-Power Corporation strenuously argued that
there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and
order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court who
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. He
further submits that the writ petition has rightly been
dismissed on the premise that a request for correction
of date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of
service of an employee. He also submits that the
judgment impugned in the present special appeal is up
to the mark in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in such matters. He further relied upon two
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2010)
14 SCC 423 (State of Maharashtra & another vs.
Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & others) and
judgment reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 (Bharat
Coking Coal Limited & others vs. Shyam Kishore
Singh) wherein the aforesaid principle of non-correction
of the date of birth at the fag end of service career has
been upheld and enunciated.
11. We have given a thoughtful consideration to
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in both
the aforesaid reported cases. The judgment passed in
the case of Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble (supra) would
not be attracted in the case of appellant for the reason
that in that case, there was a notification dated
24.12.2008 of the department whereby it has been
prescribed that date of birth of government servants
who had entered into service on or after 16.08.1981
cannot be changed after five years of joining. In the
case of Bharat Coking Coal (supra), the writ petition
was filed by the petitioner of that writ petition after four
years of his retirement. But, here, in the case in hand,
the appellant continuously raised the issue of correction
of his date of birth since beginning as stated above.
Moreover, the cause of action further arose when his
representation for correction of date of birth was
rejected by competent authority which gave rise to filing
of the writ petition before this Court. Thus, by no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that the appellant-
writ petitioner approached or made a request for
correction of date of birth at the fag end of his service
career.
12. The upshot of the above discussion unerringly
points out that the special appeal deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, the special appeal is hereby
allowed. The judgment and order passed by learned
Single Judge dated 30.09.2022 in WPSS No.1092 of
2020 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed
to correct the date of birth of appellant in the service
book, by replacing 02.05.1966 immediately, who is
going to retire on 02.05.2024 on the basis of wrong
entry of date of birth in his service record within 24
hours before his superannuation. Necessary
consequences would follow.
13. Office to do the needful forthwith.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
29.04.2024
AK
