S C CHADHA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was born on 13.12.1945. On 11.7.1983, he joined as Manager (Projects) in the PUNTEX. At that time, his date of birth was recorded as 19.6.1944. On 19.1.1983, he was absorbed as a Treasury Officer in the Department of Finance (T&A), Punjab, Chandigarh. He joined on the aforesaid post on 26.7.1993. By notification dated 21.6.1994, an amendment was made in Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. I, Part I and the Rules called the Punjab Civil Services (First Amendment) Rules, Volume I, Part I, 1994. In the amendment Rules, it was provided that the employees already in service of the Punjab Government may apply for the change of date of birth within a period of two years from the coming into force of the amended Rules, on the basis of confirmatory documentary evidence. It was farther stated in the notification that no request for change of date of birth shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of two years. The rules were clarified on 10.5.1995 by issuing a circular. In this circular, it was provided that the date of birth of any government employee should not be changed without holding a Special Enquiry to be conducted by the concerned Deputy Commissioner. On 26.7.1995, the petitioner submitted application for change of date of birth. The Circular dated 10.5.1995 was suspended on 5.10.1995 and subsequently withdrawn on 13.12.1995. On 1.10.1996, the State Government issued instructions stating that all the applications received during the period notification dated 21.6.1994 remained in operation, be disposed of on merits. To maintain uniformity in such cases, it was directed that the procedure laid down in the instructions dated 10.5.1995 be adhered to in letter and spirit. The issuance of the instructions on 5.10.1995 and 13.12.1995 was challenged by the employee similarly situated as the petitioner in CWP No. 1476 of 1996. It was argued that rules promulgated by notification dated 21.6.1994 under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, could not be amended by issuance of the notification by the Deputy Secretary or the Under Secretary. The respondents were unable to controvert this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Division Bench observed that the amended Rules which came into force w.e.f. 21.6.1994 gave a right to an employee to move an application for consideration by the respondent-authorities for correcting the date of birth. It is open to the authorities to consider the application on the basis of the available evidence. Simply on the basis of the letters issued by the Deputy Secretary/Under Secretary, the operation of the rules cannot come to a stand-still. The petition was allowed. The respondents were directed to consider the application of the petitioner therein for the change of date of birth. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar was requested to make the necessary enquiry with regard to the application of the petitioner for change of date of birth from 19.6.1944 to 13.12.1945. The Deputy Commissioner by his letter dated 26.3.1997 informed respondent No. 3. the Director (T & A) Department of Finance that the enquiry made in the case reveals that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 13.12.1945 instead of 19.6.1944. Inspite of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, the respondents did not correct the date of birth of the petitioner which prompted the petitioner to make numerous representations. By letter dated 20.7.1999 the petitioner was informed that the claim of the petitioner for change of date of birth was considered and rejected as per the advice of the Department of Personnel. The petitioner was, therefore, constrained to challenge the aforesaid action of the Department by filing CWP No. 18035 of 1999. This was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to supply a copy of the order which was the basis of the communication dated 20.7.1999. In view of the direction issued by this Court, by letter dated 17.11.2000, the petitioner was given the reasons for the rejection of the application. It was stated that as per the instructions issued by the Government with regard to the change of date of birth of the employees, the report of the Deputy Commissioner should be complete and based on verification of the facts including suitable witnesses. In the case of the petitioner, the report was received in the shape of a letter and the statements of the witnesses etc., on which it was based, were not made available. It was observed that the application submitted by the petitioner for correction of date of birth, no reasons have been mentioned on the basis of which the petitioner was claiming the change in the date of birth. It was also observed that before entering into government service, the petitioner had served at 7-8 places and he had mentioned 19.6.1944 as the date of birth.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Chopra that the report of the Deputy Commissioner was made on a proper enquiry as envisaged under the instructions. Therefore, the order rejecting the application, Annexure P-25 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Written statement has been filed. It has been stated that the petitioner was an educated person. He ought to have got the date of birth corrected when he came to know about it. The Higher Secondary Examination Certificate was issued to the petitioner on 3.6.1962. After that the petitioner took employment in numerous concerns. Each time he gave his date of birth as 19.6.1944. Therefore, he cannot now be permitted to claim change in the date of birth.