STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SHIV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab (appellants-defendants) against the judgment and decree dated 11.5.1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the judgment and decree dated 11.1.1988 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Ropar has been allowed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the plaintiff (respondent herein) had joined service of Forest department on 16.3.1949 as Office Daroga. He was later on promoted as Clerk and at the time of filing suit he was holding the post of Superintendent with effect from 29.12.1980. Shiv Singh (plaintiff) (respondent herein) filed suit for declaration that his date of birth was 23.2.1930 and, therefore, he was entitled to remain in service till 28.2.1988 with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from relieving/retiring him from the service and also to direct the defendants (appellants herein) to correct his date of birth. The date of birth of the respondent was entered as 12.3.1929 in his service record on the basis of Matriculation certificate submitted by him at the time of joining the service. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent that when in connection with a visit to some foreign country, he obtained his birth certificate from Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur, he came to know that his date of birth was 23.2.1930. The date of birth i.e. 12.3.1929 as mentioned in his service record was wrongly got entered by his father at the time of his admission in the school and the same continued to be reflected at various stages. He had submitted an application for correction of the date of birth but the same was not accepted and his date of birth was not corrected.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff could get the correction made in respect of his date of birth within prescribed period which is two years and at this later stage, he could not be allowed to get it corrected. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as six issues, however, the main issues whether the date of birth of the plaintiff is 23.2.1980 and as such his date of superannuation is 23.2.1988 as claimed was decided in favour of the plaintiff. However, another issue whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as claimed was decided against the plaintiff and his suit was dismissed. However, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the first appellate Court by holding that earlier in two cases i.e. of one Joginder Singh was changed from 15.11.1929 to 12.10.1928 vide order dated 16.10.1985 and in another case of Gurcharan Singh, his date of birth was changed from 6.4.1923 to 6.5.1926 vide order dated 21.1.1983. It was observed that in both the cases, the order of retirement were subsequently withdrawn after making the necessary correction. As the defendants-appellants themselves waived the Rule 2.5 relied by them in this case, there was no justification that those rules should be applied to the detriment of the plaintiff. Hence, the decision on issue No.5 was reversed and it was held that the date of birth of the plaintiff in his service record was liable to be corrected and, therefore, it was ordered to be so corrected. The State of Punjab has come in regular second appeal against the order of the first appellate Court.