Kulwinder Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Another

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner by filing this writ petition has made a prayer that his representations pertaining to the change of date of birth be decided. The petitioner joined the service of the Punjab State Electricity Board on 2.11.1989 as an Assistant Engineer. The date of birth that he gave out at the time of entering employment was 15.5.1962 on the basis of matriculation certificate issued by the Punjab School Education Board dated 30.9.1981. It is averred by him in the petition that after the death of his parents in 1987 it was disclosed to him by one of the relatives that there was a difference of only 4 to 5 months between his birth and that of his nephew. The petitioner then got a certificate from the Chowkidar of the village who gave out his date of birth as 25.9.1964. He then obtained a certificate from the Chief Registrar (Births and Deaths), Punjab on 25.6.1992 in which the new date of birth i.e. 25.9.1964 was mentioned. The petitioner then started making representations urging the respondents to consider his claim and rectify his date of birth as per certificate issued by the Chief Registrar (Births and Deaths), Punjab in 1992. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner got a revised matriculation certified issued with the corrected date of birth.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner regarding change of date of birth is totally misconceived. His initial date of birth which was given on the basis of matriculation certificate was 1962. Subsequently he in fact conjured up a date by referring to some information provided by a relation which on the face of it does not seem inspiring enough. Even otherwise, it is settled law that employees who wake up at the fag end of their career or even at an advanced stage of their employment and seek rectification in date of birth cannot be permitted to do so more particularly when initial date of birth given out by the petitioner was on the basis of matriculation certificate duly issued by the competent authority. Subsequent certificates obtained by the petitioner cannot be legitimized in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to confer a benefit upon the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed. The respondents are, however, still at liberty to evaluate the grievance of the petitioner.