WP (C) 991 of 2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.991/2010 % Date of Decision: 17.02.2010 Balbir Singh Sambhi …. Petitioner Through Mr.Ravi Kant Jain, Advocate. Versus Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs …. Respondent Through Mr.Ruchir Mishra, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner challenges the order dated 3rd November, 2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A No.2929/2009 titled Balbir Singh Sambhi v. Joint Secretary, Government of India & Ors dismissing his original application seeking change of date of birth on the eve of his retirement from 16th November, 1948 to 20th October, 1951. WP (C) 991 of 2010 Page 2 of 5 The petitioner was an employee with Ministry of Home Affairs and had been working as a manager in the departmental canteen. According to him before his impending retirement he visited his home town when after discussion with his sisters, it transpired that his actual date of birth is 20th October, 1951 and not 16th November, 1948 and consequently he obtained an alleged birth certificate on 23rd October, 2008 allegedly showing his date of birth as 20th October, 1951. The petitioner has already retired on 30th November, 2008 after attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner consequently filed an original application before Central Administrative Tribunal seeking quashing of order dated 10th November, 2008 retiring the applicant with effect from 30th November, 2008 and to take back the petitioner in service and allow him to continue in service keeping in view his correct date of birth. The Tribunal has declined the application of the petitioner on the ground that after examining the record of the case the Tribunal declined to interfere with regard to change of date of birth on the eve of retirement of the petitioner and further held that the petitioner cannot be reinstated in the service after his retirement on 30th November, 2008. WP (C) 991 of 2010 Page 3 of 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he came to know about his actual date of birth on the eve of his retirement when he visited his sister. The learned counsel is, however, unable to give any cogent ground as to how he could not have known the alleged changed date of birth earlier. No rule or precedent has been shown by the learned counsel which will entitle the petitioner for the change of his date of birth after retirement and to take him back in service after his retirement. This is no more res integra that a Government official or an educated employee cannot be allowed to change his date of birth at the fag end of his career. The importance of the date of birth of an employee given to his employer and accepted as correct by the later and entered in the” Service and Leave record” of the former, cannot be underestimated. When a person is taken into service on appointment, he is required to declare his date of birth and produce a document in support thereof. When on the basis of such declaration made or certificate produced by the employee, an entry is made of his date of birth in his record and there is no error on the part of the officials, then the Government or the employer at the fag end of the career of such employee, can decline to change the date of birth. Changing the date of Birth in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in such facts and circumstances is unwarranted. WP (C) 991 of 2010 Page 4 of 5 Extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction vested in the High Court‟s under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to make employees of the Government or its instrumentalities to continue service beyond the period of their entitlement according to the date of birth accepted by such employers on the basis of such newly found material or to grant relief regarding emoluments on the basis of such change of date of Birth. The Supreme Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri,(2005) 11 SCC 465 , at page 475 had held that the service record cannot be changed just a few years before the retirement or at the fag end of his retirement. The Apex Court had held as under : “……It is thus seen from the above quoted judgments that this Court has consistently taken the view that correction in entries made in government records on the basis of which the government servant got the service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before retirement or at the fag end of his retirement.” The Supreme Court had also held in Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 that the alteration sought by an employee after 35 years of his induction into service during which he had several occasions to see the service book cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court had held as under : “ ………In this case, there was a delay of five years in seeking for alteration prescribed in Note 5 to FR 56( m ) as WP (C) 991 of 2010 Page 5 of 5 substituted in 1979. This Court held that those already in service prior to 1979, for a period of more than five years, obliged to seek alteration within the maximum period of five years from the date of coming into force of amended Note 5 in 1979. Alteration sought by the employee in 1991, 35 years after his induction into the service during which period he had several occasions to see the service-book to raise any objection regarding his date of birth cannot be allowed in view of unexplained and inordinate delay.” In the circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case entitling him to get his date of birth changed after retirement and on that basis to get reinstated on the post from which he has retired on 30th November, 2008 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal entitling petitioner for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. FEBRUARY 17, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. „k‟