IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4523 of 2004 LAXMI PASWAN SON OF LATE MAUJI PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAKRAICHA, P.O. SAKRAICHA, P.S. PARSA BAZAR, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 3. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, PATNA. 4. CIRCLE OFFICER, PHULWARI SHARIF, PATNA. 5. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA. ----------- 3 21/07/2010 Petitioner was a chowkidar from 1.1.1979. Based on the policy decision of the State government in the year 1990 he was given the status of a government employee. His service book was opened and the benefit accruing of such an appointment started flowing in his favour. He continued to work without any let and hindrance till a communication was received by him in terms of annexure-4 which stated that the petitioner is going to superannuate on 31.05.2004. He was advised to get his pension paper in place. Petitioner was horrified on receipt of such a communication and he immediately filed a representation before the District Magistrate, Patna that his date of birth is 21.01.1957 which would be evident from the fact that he has a school leaving certificate where his date of birth is recorded as 21.01.1957. - 2 - If that is accepted to be correct, then the petitioner can only retire in 1917. Not only that there are certain admit cards which have been issued by the Bihar School Examination Board where also the date of birth of the petitioner is reflected. He had furnished these materials at the time of opening of the service book but the respondent authorities on their own filled the date of birth ignoring these materials. Additional submission made is that at the time of conferment of the status of a government employee, all the chowkidars were subjected to a Medical Board and at the time when the medical report was filed in the year 1996, the age of the petitioner was shown to be 33 years. If the report of the Medical Board is taken into consideration, he has many more years to remain on the post. Representation of the petitioner was considered by the District Magistrate, Patna and his decision has been communicated which has been brought on record along with I.A. No. 4206 of 2004 as annexure-7 to the writ application. Reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules. Rule 96 categorically - 3 - lays down that any change or variation in the date of birth entered in a service book can be corrected provided a clerical mistake in this regard is pointed out within ten years. Since petitioner never approached or asked for any change in the date of birth when the service book was opened, producing materials at a later date for such a correction cannot be allowed. For every government employee it is mandatory for him to put his signature on the service book once the details are entered therein. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had not put his signature or that the infirmity which had crept in the date of birth at the time of opening of the service book was complained of to any authority. Obviously, the material which has been brought on record in support of the claim for a change of date of birth has been brought into service after the petitioner has been told about his date of superannuation. Rule with regard to the changes which can be entertained, cannot be given a goby unless a hard and fast case is made out which can satisfy the authorities as well as the Court that the petitioner was prevented from taking recourse to such a rule within the time frame. - 4 - Instances of such kind where employees tried to claim benefit of difference of age on the verge of retirement is not new. Case of this petitioner is not different. Writ application is an after thought not based on any cogent material for reconsideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter relies on a decision rendered in the case of Bhrigunath Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2005(1) PLJR, 508 where according to the said decision it has been held that despite Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules, 1950, the date of birth of an employee has to be decided on the basis of matriculation examination and the date of birth entered therein. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is a matriculate. The so called School Leaving Certificate only shows that he had left the school after having passed 7th examination. There is no law to presume the validity of such a certificate unless it has been issued by the Bihar School Examination Board after passing the matriculation examination. The other decision which has been pressed into service is in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Md. - 5 - Sohail and others reported in 1993(2) PLJR, 666. This was a matter where the Division Bench was considering the case of age and date of birth with regard to an employee of a government Corporation. Rule 96 of the Rules was not an issue for consideration in the said Division Bench. It has no applicability to the case of the petitioner. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ application. It is dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)