MANGAT RAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 28.2.2012, Annexure P7, whereby the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab has declined the prayer of the petitioner seeking correction of date of birth in the service book.

(2.) The petitioner joined the respondent-Department on the post of Pharmacist on 1.9.1976. At the time of joining service, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 15.3.1954 as per the Matriculation Certificate produced by him. It is pleaded that in the year 1982, the petitioner came to know that his actual date of birth was 18.6.1956 and, accordingly, he applied to the Punjab School Education Board for correction of his date of birth. The requisite change was allowed and a new date of birth certificate dated 26.8.1982 was issued by the Punjab School Education Board. Placing reliance upon the same, the petitioner submitted an application in Nov. 1982 before the respondent-authorities seeking change of his date of birth in the service record from 15.3.1954 to 18.6.1956. Apparently, repeated representations had been filed by the petitioner and it is vide impugned order dated 28.2.2012, Annexure P7, he was intimated that his claim for correction of date of birth in the service book cannot be accepted as, such claim is not covered under any instructions/rules.

(3.) Mr. AS Cheema, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order is untenable in law inasmuch as the petitioner had not derived any benefit on account of the wrong entry as regards his date of birth at the time of initial entry into service. Learned counsel would submit that even if the initial date of birth i.e. 15.3.1954 is taken into account, still the petitioner had been eligible for entry into service on 1.9.1976 on the post of Pharmacist. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dimpy Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and others reported as 2006(3) S.C.T. 345 : 2006(3) RSJ 665 to contend that even if a remedy as per administrative law/rules becomes barred by limitation, still a legal remedy would always be available to an employee as regards seeking correction in his date of birth.