STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SHIAM LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by the State of H.P. under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for challenging the order passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal on 3.11.2000 in O.A. No. 3054 of 1994, allowing the application filed by the respondent for correction of birth entry.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent joined the service of H.P. Government on 16.12.1960 as untrained J.B.T. The date of birth of the respondent was recorded in the matriculation certificate as 7.9.1942 in the service book. The applicant represented for correction of his date of birth in 1972 before Punjab University alleging that his date of birth was 9.11.1943. The date of birth of the respondent was corrected and a duplicate certificate was issued to the respondent on 24.6.1972. The respondent alleged that he applied for correction of his date of birth in 1972, but his case was rejected vide order dated 13.9.1991. He again filed an appeal/representation to the Secretary (Finance) which was again rejected on 10.11.1994. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Section 19 of the H.P. Administrative Tribunals Act before the learned Tribunal, which allowed the application for correction vide its order.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General were that the applicant applied at a very belated stage for correction of his birth entry and the said entry could not have been corrected by the learned Tribunal since the applicant did not make the representation within a period of two years as prescribed in H.P. Financial Rules. It was submitted that though the correction was made by the Punjab University in 1972 but the application was filed by the respondent before the learned Tribunal on 4.12.1994, which could not have been entertained by the learned Tribunal since there was nothing on record as to when the respondent applied for correction and when his application was rejected. It was also submitted that even though he may have applied earlier but in case his application was neither accepted or rejected, he should not have waited till the year 1994 to apply for correction and, therefore, the order of correction could not have been made by the learned Tribunal since there was sufficient delay in applying for correction.