-, ar^j r'ia!""' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR W.P.No. 3816 of 2003 Petitioner' Vsrsus i.1ahettar Sahu, S/o Shri Ghasi Ram Sahu, aged about 48 years, keing Pump Attendent, R/o Depika Colony, Bara numbsr, M.P. Gsvra Project, Tehsii Katghora distt. Koraba (C.G.). -5 3. 4. "k, Respondents 1. The D^puty Gsnsra! Manager, S E C L, Gevra regjon, Gevra Projct, Tahsil Katghora, distt. Korba (C.G.) The Staf? Officsr (Civi!), S E C L Gsvra Gevra region, Gevra Project, Tahsil Ka^hora, distt. Korba (C.G.). The Deputy Main Finance Manaser (Essb.) S E C L, Gsvra rsgjon, Gevra Project, Tahs;-' Ka^hora, distt. Korba (C.G.). The Supsrintending Engineer (Civi!), City AdmJnJsfration, SECL Gevra region, Gevra Project, Tahsi! Ka^hora. distt. Korba (C.G.). The Executive Engineer (Estb.)/Man power/CMPF Cei!, SECL Gevra region, Gevra Projct, Tahsil Katghora, distt. Korba (C.G.). WR!T PETITiON UNDER ART1CLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTjTUTiON OF INDiA SB: Hon'bis Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shri Hemant Soispurkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate forths responde.nts. ORDER (Passed on thls 17 day of Juh/. 2008) B! n • BSi ss '&s, Bi K^ws^B nis Bs B! IS s;^ •I T'!%ak r^ektt+I^ii^/s^ trwt 1*t*ir» t^/t^t!/iiF* r'^islrt^ •"> ijttirSf'/i^If^.n.^itn 'f'^k +t^^ rdii'*»^'*i»»/^;'*n' i. iii^ ik/^ui.iVi *<?i i uy UijO pcUUwii ^is;^i^& (.i WiiUuitc^iivii fcv Ui^ js;5»jwi<JiiiUteiii to correct his dste of birth as 1.1.1955. 2. The brief facte, in nutehe!!, are that the petitioner was appointed on T? fi 'IQ7'a. . '.8. &,£-.^/.i^ff^ iiin the serv'ice of the ressondents/South Eastern Coalfields Limited. The dats of birth of ths petiSSonsr, in the ser/ice book, was recordsd as 1.1.1944. Without any demur, the petitioner continued in .-.^attSS^ ^w "L. sewice. The pstitioner challenged his date of birtt'i for the first tims on 23.7.2001 by tnaking a rsprssentation (Annexure P/3), just tA'o years befo his daie 6f rstirement s.e. 31 December, 2003 , After making ttis representation !R July, 2001 the petitioner did not teke any steps raisina the dispuSe of his date of birth. The petitioner, in support of his case, has produced a certificate (Annexure P/1), issued on 10.10.1897, by She Gram Panchayat rssarding his ^l-S^A of birth as 1.1.1955 and one fidavit dated 9.6.2003 (Annexure P/2). affidavit 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has raised the dispute at ths fag end of his serv'ice career and this petition has been filsd 15 days before ths date of his retiremsnt. 1. It is wel! settied principie of law that the date of birth recorded in the serv'ics book js to be taken ss final, unlsss there are some effective, genuine documents, contrar/ to She records, as produced. The petitioner has not produced any other cerijficate like the certificate issued at the time of his birth. The certificate produced is dated 10.10.1897 and the affidavit is dated 9.6.2003. Even after obtaining the certificate from the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner has not taken any stsps tii! making the representation to the authorities in Juiy, 2001. On perusa! of ths papers, it appears that there is no sufficient and convincjng evidence, produced by the peStioner to grant him benefrt of aimost 1 1 years, at ths fag end of ser.'ice caresr. Th caresr. The pstitioner has worked for about 30 years m service. 5. The petitioner cannot be permitled at the fag end of his career to chaitenge the entry in hts sepv'ice record of She date of birth. The right to get the date of birth corrected either on the bssis of matricuSation certificate or othera'ise is not a iega! right for iess a constitutions! right. Any ciaim reaarding correction of the date of birth should not bs made or entertained after dscades, especially on the sven of superannuation of •^ •3 -afc. 'ii s fStl — -3 the employee. The Supreme Court in the matter of U. P. Syiadhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri {(2005) 11 SCC 465} obsen/ed as under: "It is thus seen from ttie above quote Judgments that this Court has consistsntly taken the view that correction in entries made in govemment rscords on the basis of which the governmsnt serv'ant got the sewice cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before retirementor atthe faa snd of his retiremsnt." ,K-SS S'B? Appiying the above stated principle of law to the fact of the present case, it is admitSsd that the entry of date of birth of the petitioner jn 8ie ssn/ice record v/as made as '1.1.1944', when the pstitioner v/as appointed on 22.8.1973. AS the fag end of his service career the petitioner made a reprssentation on 23.7.2001 (/wnexure P/3) for correction of dats of birth as '1.1.1955' on the basis of aileged certificate (Annexure P/1), issued by the Gram Panchayat on 10.10.1987. The petitioner has not adducedany cogent svidence to indicats asto vrfist prevented him from raising the issue earlier. The pstitioner kept waiting tii! he made a representation on 23.7.2001 about fcvo years befors the date of his retirement i.e. 31.12.2003. The petitioner has not made out a case for interference v.'ith a correction of date of birth, as recorded in his service book. -2- 8. !n view of the foregoing, 1 do not find any merit in ttis pe on. The petiSion desewes to be and is dismlssed, accordingly. No order asto r*^c~+e- trfV/i^L^. satfsft K. Sd/- Th.ak"iir otrj ge >3