GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 17.05.2012 (Annexure P -7), whereby the respondent No. 2 has rejected his claim for the change of date of birth from 15.09.1956 to 07.03.1958. The grounds for rejection are that the petitioner had joined service on 12.05.1981, but did not make any request of change of date of birth, thereafter. The notification had prescribed the date when the application could be made between 21.06.1994 to 13.12.1995, but no request had been received from the petitioner. The various communications as many as four had been addressed to the concerned officer to ask him the date of birth of his brother sisters younger and elder to him, but no evidence had been sent apart from the communication that he was the youngest of the siblings. Resultantly, his request was rejected.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has submitted that it is not disputed that the petitioner had filed an application on 19.05.1995 (Annexure P -3) within the prescribed period and the findings were as such contradictory, once information had already been supplied that he was the youngest. It is further submitted that decision was only taken after this Court had directed on 02.09.2011 (Annexure P -6) that the legal notice dated 18.04.2011 (Annexure P -5) be decided. It is, accordingly, contended that as per the certificate issued by the Registrar Birth & Deaths, Punjab dated 05.08.1994 (Annexure P -2), the petitioner was entitled for the change of date of birth, as the said certificate had evidentiary value which was over and above the Matriculation Certificate dated 06.07.1974 (Annexure P -1).

(3.) Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the order was justified, since the petitioner application had been returned in original in the year 1995 vide endorsement made by the Assistant Registrar himself on the original application on 01.10.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner had never applied and only filed CWP No. 15514 of 2011, in which directions had been issued on 02.09.2011 (Annexure P -6) to decide the legal notice. Resultantly, in the absence of information supplied, which had been asked for the order was well justified.