HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No:1070 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the Decree and Judgment dated 28.6.2011 passed in A.S.No.13 of 2010 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, confirming the Decree & Judgment dated 28.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, in O.S.No.429 of 2006. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the Court below. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. Originally, the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.429 of 2006 seeking to declare his date of birth viz., 1.7.1957 as per the Birth Register extract issued by the 2nd defendant as true and correct and to grant mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to effect changes in the service register of the plaintiff mentioning his date of birth as 1.7.1957 instead of 1.7.1951, on the ground that he joined in Railway service as a Kalasi in Hubli work shop on 17.4.1976 and presently he was working as a Supervisor in Carriage Repair shop, Tirupathi and recently, he noticed that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 1.7.1951 instead of 1.7.1957 and the said wrong will affect his entire official career of service. The defendants were set exparte. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got Exs.A1 to A3 marked. On appreciation of evidence, the Court below having observed that the plaintiff had ample opportunities for correction of records, even at the earlier stage after completion of SSLC and even on the date of his joining in the service, but all these years, he kept quiet and at a belated stage, that too, at the fag end of his retirement, he filed the present suit and there were no genuine reasons, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal, in which, the lower appellate Court having concurred with the findings of the Court below, dismissed the appeal. Hence the present second appeal. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the appellant-plaintiff that he was born on 1.7.1957 but his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 1.7.1951 in all the records and the same will affect his service. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that though a certificate obtained from the Health Officer, Tirupathi Municipality dated 25.2.1995 was produced in support of his contention before the Court below, the same was not property appreciated. In a case of this nature, it is to be noted that a Government servant who has declared his age and birth date at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his birth date, but however, inaction of the employee for a long period from the date of joining service precludes him from showing that entry of his date of birth in service record was not correct, and from making any right to correction of birth date. Further, the Courts cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights. As can be seen from the judgments under appeal, it is obvious that it is an admitted fact that the appellant-plaintiff joined in service in the year 1976 and he made declaration of date of birth as 1.7.1951 and he also mentioned that he discontinued 8th Class and that as per the service register the appellant-plaintiff passed S.S.C. examination during October, 1979 but the said record was also suppressed by the appellant-plaintiff. It is also made clear that though he obtained certificate in the year 1995, there is no material on record to show as to for which purpose the certificate was obtained in the year 1995, and no explanation was forthcoming from the appellant-plaintiff as to what prevented him from approaching the Court in the year 1995. Further, the plaint does not disclose anything about his education career, and about his approach to the Court at the fag end of his service. Therefore, it can be said that the approach of the appellant-plaintiff is not bonafide. In the above circumstances and in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below and since the grounds raised in the appeal do not constitute any substantial question of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgments under appeal and hence, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana Dated:13.10.2011 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No:1070 OF 2011 13.10.2011