DEVKI NANDAN VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was working as Superintending Engineer in the Public works Department of the State of Haryana. His date of birth recorded in the service record was 17/7/1934. He was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/7/1992. Before he retired from service, he applied to the state government for rectification of his date of birth which according to him was 14/6/1936. The State government accepted the appellant's representation by the order dated 18/6/1992 and corrected his date of birth in the official record. The said order was challenged by Shri S. C. Jhari, Respondent 2 on the ground that the same adversely affected him in the sense that his chance of promotion was considerably postponed. The High court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 18/6/1992. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High court.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The High court quashed the order correcting the date of birth of the appellant on the ground that an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner before any orderchanging the date of birth of the appellant could be passed by the State government. We are at a loss to understand as to how and on what logic the high court imported the rules of natural justice in a matter where it has no relevance at all. The least we can say is that the High court fell into patent error almost bordering perversity in interfering with the order dated 18/6/1992 on the ground that it should have been passed after hearing the affected persons. When correction regarding date of birth is made in the service record of a person the state government is doing what is required under law. A person has a right to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation. When wrong date of birth is entered in the service record the right of the person to remain in service till superannuation is obviously infracted. Rectification of the date of birth is a matter between the person concerned and the State government and no other person has locus standi to prefer a caveat in such a matter.

(3.) We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the High court judgment and uphold the order dated 18/6/1992 rectifying the date of birth of the appellant. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the appellant would have retired from service on 30/6/1994 on the basis of" the corrected date of birth. We direct the State government to treat the appellant to be continuously in service till 30/6/1994 on which date he would be deemed to have retired. In case he has not been paid the salary and other emoluments till the date of retirement, the same shall be paid to him within three months from today. We further direct the State government to refix the pension of the appellant on the basis of his last drawn salary as would be calculated on 30/6/1994. The pension shall also be fixed within three months from today. The appeal is allowed with costs which we quantify as Rs. 10,000. 00 to be paid by Respondent 2.