P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Preetam Adiwasi Vs. State of M.P. - (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) (28 Aug 2020)

Any petition to challenge the date of birth mentioned in the service book at the fag end of service is not maintainable

MANU/MP/1074/2020

Service

Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed against the order by which the Petitioner has been retired from service on attaining the age of 62 years.

It is submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner that, the Petitioner is an illiterate person and was appointed in the year 1979 as daily-rated employee and since the Petitioner did not have any age proof at the time of his appointment, therefore, the date of birth i.e. 4th October, 1956 was wrongly mentioned in his service book without any attesting proof. It is further submitted that, where the employee does not have any document in support of proof of his age, then the Respondents/authorities should have got the employee examined medically by the Medical Board in order to ascertain his age. However, on the basis of incorrect date of birth mentioned in the service book, he has been retired from 31st October, 2018.

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka, has held that, a public servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the service record and may apply for correction of the record. But until the record is corrected he cannot claim that he has been deprived of the guarantee under Article 311(2) of the Constitution by being compulsorily retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the footing of the date of the birth entered in the service record.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Mathura Singh has held that, "Rule 84 of M.P. Financial Code (Volume I) provides that, date of birth once recorded must be deemed to be absolutely conclusive and except in the case of a clerical error no revision of such a declaration shall be allowed to be made at a later period for any purpose whatsoever."

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Mathura Singh, it is clear that, any petition to challenge the date of birth mentioned in the service book at the fag end of service is not maintainable. However, in the present case, the petition has been filed by the Petitioner after two years of his retirement, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, present petition can be entertained in view of delay and laches. Petition dismissed.

Relevant : State of M.P. v. Mathura Singh MANU/MP/0412/2002, State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka, MANU/SC/0490/1970

Tags : DATE OF BIRTH   CORRECTION   MAINTAINABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved