STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DR. SUDARSHAN GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Mrs. Sudarshan Goyal claims to have been born on 15 Kartik Sambat 1995 which corresponds to Oct. 31, 1938. Unfortunately, in the matriculation certificate she was shown to have been born on 15.4.1937. This date of birth was recorded in her service record when she entered Punjab Civil Medical Service on 11.11.1961 after selection through the Punjab Public Service Commission. 15.4.1937 as the correct date of her birth continued to remain recorded in her service record because she bonafide believed 15.4.1937 as the date of her birth. As per Public Civil Medical Service Rules Volume-1 Part 2.5 as it existed at the time of her entry into service, she was entitled to get her date of birth corrected within a period of two years of entry into service. She did not resort to these provisions because she bonafide believed that 15.4.1937 was the correct date of her birth recorded in her service record on the basis of date of her birth recorded in the matriculation certificate. Her mother Smt. Kala Wati was illiterate. She died on 4.12.1993. After her death, when she went through the papers left by her mother, she came across one horoscope. From that horoscope she learnt that her date of birth was 15 Kartik, Sambat 1995 - 31.10.1938. She was born in the house of the parents of her mother at Rampura Phul. She got her date of birth entry searched from the records of Municipal Committee, Rampura Phul with a view to verifying whether in the municipal record, the same date of birth was lying recorded pertaining to her as was lying recorded in the horoscope. In the municipal record, the same date of birth was lying recorded as was lying recorded in the horoscope. She obtained certified copy of the entry from the Municipal Committee, Rampura Phul which shows that she was born on Oct. 31, 1938. She wanted to have her date of birth corrected. She accordingly contacted a lawyer who advised her that she could not go in for correction of her date of birth after lapse of 32/33 years period. Soon thereafter there was notification No. 11/4/93/5-FB-11/4499 dated 21.6.1994 amending the existing rules and this amendment was known as Punjab Civil Service Ist Amendment Rules Vol. 1 Part 1 of 194. By virtue of this amendment, it was provided in rule 3 as under :

(2.) In view of this amendment of the rules, she got opportunity to seek correction of her date of birth. She submitted application for the correction of her date of birth supported by certified copy of the birth record obtained from the Municipal Committee, Rampura Phul and the horoscope. It was an irrefutable documentary evidence entitling her to get her date of birth corrected successfully. Ultimately, her prayer for correction of date of birth was declined by the Government through notification published in the Punjab Gazette dated 16.11.1995. In the meantime she retired on attaining the age of superannuation which was 58 years. She filed suit for declaration against the State of Punjab to the effect that the notification dated 16.11.1995 issued under the signatures of Sh. G.P.S. Sahi, Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Health and Family Welfare and endorsed to the Director, Health and Family Welfare and her (plaintiff) vide No. 33/894-3BH-132058-59 dated 23.11.1995 was illegal, unlawful and contrary to the facts and figures and decided out of prejudice and with mala fide intention by the Principal Secretary mentioning incorrect facts and as such the same was void, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the rules, regulations, and her fundamental rights and is honest (non est ?) and not binding on her and for the grant of mandatory injunction by way of consequential relief directing the State of Punjab and others to correct her date of birth as recorded in the service record from 15.4.1937 to 31.10.1938 and allow her to work as such till the date of superannuation i.e. 31.10.1996 and to pay her salary and other benefits admissible under the law.

(3.) Defendant-State of Punjab contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that she for the first time, submitted application dated 2.8.1994 for the rectification of her recorded date of birth which was 15.4.1937 to 31.10.1938 in the light of Government Instructions dated 21.6.1994. Operation of Government Instructions dated 21.6.1994 was suspended with effect from 10.10.1995 by the Department of Finance vide circular No. 11/1/91-FP/11/6938 dated 10.10.1995 and the Department of Personnel vide their circular No. 9/22/886/5PP-III/30315 dated 13.12.1995 withdrew the Government Instructions regarding change in date of birth. Plaintiff's case for correction of date of birth was considered by the Government and it was rejected on 16.11.1995. She remained silent for more than 30 years for getting her date of birth corrected and she could get her date of birth corrected within two years of her entry into service. She sought correction of her date of birth only 8 months prior to date of her superannuation. She was to superannuate on 30.4.1995.