IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 2131 of 2008. Reserved on: 26.12.2008. Decided on: 09.01.2009. __________________________________________________ Ms. Marchi Devi … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Part Time School Mother in the year 1966. She was appointed as Whole Time Chowkidar on 21.9.1981. She was regularized w.e.f. 12.6.1984 in the pay scale of Rs. 300-430. She submitted her medical certificate and declaration regarding date of birth on 20.6.1984. The date of birth mentioned in this document was 8.11.1933. She submitted representation for changing her date of birth from 8.11.1933 to 26.1.1938. The same was rejected by the competent authority. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 Mr. H.K. Paul has strenuously argued that as per affidavit dated 20.9.1990 and copy of Pariwar register dated 4.9.1990, the date of birth of his client is 26.1.1938 and not 8.11.1933. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that at the time of submitting her bio-data i.e. on 20.6.1984, she has given her date of birth as 8.11.1933. He has drawn the attention of the Court to School Leaving Certificate wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 8.11.1933. He lastly contended that she could not get her date of birth changed at the verge of her retirement. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. It is not disputed by the parties that when she had supplied her date of birth, her date of birth mentioned by her was 8.11.1933. In her School Leaving Certificate the date of birth mentioned is 8.11.1933. There is presumption of truth attached to the School Leaving Certificate. The entries made in the service record could not be altered on the basis of Pariwar register vide Annexure-C. The representation made by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the competent authority. She could not be permitted to change her date of birth after an inordinate delay. It is settled law by now if an employee wants to get her date of birth changed, it has to be done within a reasonable period. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in State of U.P. and another Vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 49 that date of birth recorded in the service book should be decisive and the correction can be sought only in 3 accordance with procedure prescribed and within the time fixed under the rules or order or within reasonable time in absence of any rules or order. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under: “Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. But, of late a trend can be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of their retirement waking up from their supine slumber raise a dispute about their service records, by either invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or by filing applications before the concerned Administrative Tribunals, or even filing suits for adjudication as to whether the dates of birth recorded were correct or not. Most of the States have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth in the service record is to be dealt with and what procedure is to be followed. In many such rules a period has been prescribed within which if any public servant makes any grievance in respect of error in the recording of his date of birth, the application for that purpose can be entertained. The sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction, of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades, especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. In the case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka (1970 (3) SCC 4 624), this Court said that the date of the compulsory retirement "must in our judgment, be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected consistently with the appropriate procedure." In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagreev Sarma (1990 (2) SCC 682) the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 were considered. The public servant concerned had claimed correction of his date of birth with reference to the births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal corrected the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, in view of the entry in the births and deaths register ignoring the rules framed by the State Government referred to above. It was, inter alia, observed by this Court: "The object underlying Rule 4 is to avoid repeated applications by a government employee for the correction of his date of birth and with that end in view it provides that a government servant whose date of birth may have been recorded in the service register in accordance with the rules applicable to him and if that entry had become final under the rules prior to the commencement of 1984 Rules, he will not be entitled for alteration of his date of birth." Their Lordships’ of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in U.P. Mandhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 465 that date of birth recorded in service book at the time of entering into the Government service shall be deemed to be correct. 5 Same principle has been re-iterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Coal India Ltd. and another Vs. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 201. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. January 09, 2009. (cr)