RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for a modification of the service registration as regards the date of birth alleged to have been wrongly recorded as on 09.04.1954 when, according to the petitioner, his actual date of birth was 20.12.1955. The petitioner claims that he had made a representation for modification of his date of birth through an undated communication which was rejected on 04.01.2012 by the respondent-Bank. While rejecting it, the respondent-Bank has stated that a request for change of date of birth could not be entertained in terms of para 2.5 to 2.10 of Chapter II of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I. The petitioner has entered the services as early as on 14.01.1982. The date of birth has been entered on the basis of Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana. He has earned his promotion in the year 1999 and 2010 and had also been promoted as a Branch Manager in the year 2011. It could be, therefore, seen that the petitioner was not an illiterate but reasonably well educated and had been in service for the last 30 years with the Bank, obtained promotions and he had arrived at the post of a Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank. It is not very clear from the averments in the petition as to when the petitioner claims that he knew that his date of birth had been wrongly entered. It is admitted by the petitioner that he is due for retirement in April 2012 and it is only on the eve of his retirement, the petitioner has applied to the respondent for modification of date of birth.

(2.) I find the writ petition to be wholly vexatious and he does not appear to learnt lessons from several of the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In State of M. P. v. Prem Lal Shrivas, 2011 9 SCC 664, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a government servant cannot claim as a matter of right correction of date of birth in service record after lapse of time fixed by employer, even if he has good evidence to establish erroneous entry. Adverting to facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed manifest error in allowing change of date of birth after lapse of over two decades, notwithstanding that no period had been fixed for filing such application was prescribed. In State of Haryana v. Satish Kumar Mittal, 2010 9 SCC 337, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if Rules did not prescribe any time limit for correction of date of birth, it must be within reasonable time. Two years delay after the time prescribed was found to disentitle the employee, by holding that belated requests particularly those made at fag end of service are accepted, they would mar chances of promotion of other employees, who expect promotion on retirement of employee seeking correction of entry.

(3.) In all issues relating to date of birth, the issue is not merely that the correct date of birth has not been entered; the issue is whether such a relief could be asked in the twilight years of his service. An employer ought at all times to know the dates when the employees are to be superannuated. On this prospect, any employer is expected to make his human resources planning so that there is an appropriate person to replace the person who is to be superannuated. The terminal dues have to be calculated and paid appropriately. An employer is bound to plan how his cadre has to be deployed in various positions and when the recruitments have to be done. It can never be in a state of flux with uncertainly looming large as to whether an employee is going to have any modification of the date of birth till the last day when he will bid good-bye to service. If the respondents have therefore found that there was no justification for the petitioner to come with a request for a change, I do not think there is any error in rejecting the petitioner's request.