Nathu Ram vs Secretary (Irrigation and Public Health) and Others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an Letter Patent Appeal filed by the Appellant against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP (T) No. 6749 of 2008 dated 21.7.2010, dismissing the petition filed by the Appellant as Petitioner for correction of his date of birth.

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner who was engaged as daily waged mason w.e.f 1987 filed a petition that his actual date of birth was 14-6-1949 and not 14-6-1939 and, therefore, he should not have been retired on attaining the age of 60 years as on 1.1.2000.

He had also produced a certificate issued by Secretary of Gram Panchayat certifying his date of birth to be 14.6.1949. The learned Single Judge after considering the entries in the Muster Rolls Annexures R-2 to R-6 and other evidence produced before it, observed that the Petitioner had given his date of birth as 14.6.1939 and it is only at the time of his retirement that he produced a certificate Annexure A-1 to substantiate his actual date of birth as 14.6.1949. After referring to a decision of Apex Court in Punjab and Haryana High Court v. Megh Raj Garg and Anr. 2010 (6) Scale, he concluded that the application for correction of date of birth should have been filed within 2 years from the date of entry in the government service. It is clear that the Petitioner''s date of birth in the Muster Rolls was entered as June 14, 1939. He applied for correction of date of birth after he had already retired from service.

Our attention has been drawn to decisions of this Court in C.W.P. No. 1006 of 2007 decided on 20-3-2008 and C.W.P. No. 283 of 2007 decided on 9-12-2009, in which reliance was placed on the decision of Apex Court in Narinder Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein it was held that application for correction of date of birth could be entertained only if it is made within 5 years after entering into service.

The original record of the Panchayat was produced in this Court and there appears to be some correction having been made in the year by making some interpolations. The findings of fact have been recorded by the learned Single Judge based upon the evidence and it was rightly concluded that the application at the belated stage for correcting date of birth cannot be entertained. The above decisions of this Court substantiates the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.

In view of above discussion, we find no infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge and accordingly there is no merit in the Letter Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed.