JAI NATH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Khalasi in the Water Resources Department way back in the year 1989. On noticing a discrepancy in his date of birth recorded in his Service Book he approached the Executive Engineer, Sone Barrage Division, Indrapuri for rectification of the error. The same has been rejected by the Superintending Engineer, Sone Canal Modernization Circle, Dehri under letter dated 20.2.2015 placing reliance on the Rules 96 & 97 of the Bihar Financial Rules. Relying upon the bar imposed therein for claiming correction of date of birth petitioner's application has been rejected as the same has been made much after ten years of the appointment. Claim for correction of the date of birth is not prescribed in the said rules beyond ten year after appointment of the Government Servant. Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules would apply to claim for correction of date of birth on the basis of claim made by employee, different from that claimed at the time of appointment.

(3.) In the instant case, the employee/petitioner has not come forward claiming a different date of birth than what was given by him at the time of appointment. The petitioner at the time of his appointment was subjected to medical examination. Annexure 2/2 is determination of his age and date of birth by the Medical officer, Sone Barrage Hospital, Indrapuri (Rohtas). It has determined his age to be 30 years by his appearance as also according to the submission of the petitioner. Petitioner's age was thus determined to be 30 years on 26.5.1989 by the respondent authorities themselves while appointing him. The determination of age under Annexure 2/2 leads to irresistible conclusion that the petitioner's year of birth was assessed as 1959. Such determination done at the time of petitioner's appointment is admitted by the respondent authorities as the said Medical Certificate issued on 26.5.1989 has been verified by the authorities and the same has been found to be genuine. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the admitted position is that at the time of appointment petitioner's age was 30 years. In the circumstances, it is not a case where the employee/petitioner has come forward claiming correction of date of birth by a new claim after his appointment. In fact, he is pointing out a mistake/error committed by respondents in recording of his date of birth in the service book.