IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2841 of 1988 Date of decision: 2nd December, 2010 Rattan Lal … Appellant Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sushant Batish, Advocate for Mr. Radha Krishan Battas, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration and prayed therein that in the service record maintained by the defendant- respondent-State of Punjab, his date of birth be corrected from 13th May, 1929 to 13th January, 1931 and he be allowed to continue in service of the defendant-respondent upto 31st January, 1989. In the plaint, it was stated that the plaintiff-appellant was born on 13th January, 1931 at Nabha in the house of his maternal grandfather. At that time, Nabha was a part of the erstwhile Pepsu State. His mother died when he was about 2/3 years old, therefore, his date of birth was not known and due to mistake, his date of birth was entered in the school record as 13th May, 1929. The plaintiff-appellant was working as a Circle Head Draftsman in the department of defendant-respondent. Just before the retirement, it was stated that his paternal uncle Ram Jas Jain disclosed Regular Second Appeal No.2841 of 1988 him his correct date of birth and therefore, a decree of declaration be issued and the date of birth of the plaintiff-appellant be corrected. State of Punjab-defendant-respondent filed written statement, wherein it was stated that the claim of the plaintiff-appellant was time-barred, as he had not applied for correction of his date of birth within two years of his joining the Government service. The defendant- respondent further took a stand that in the matriculation certificate, the date of birth of the plaintiff-appellant recorded was 13th May, 1929. He joined the service in the erstwhile Pepsu State on 13th October, 1952 and the date of his superannuation was 31st May, 1987. It was further stated that the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit on 20th August, 1986, i.e. just nine months before the date of his retirement. After conclusion of the pleadings, the trial Court formulated following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff was born on 1.11.1987 BK (Corresponding to 13.1.1931 A.D.) at Nabha, if so to what effect? OPP 2. Whether the suit is within time? OPP 3. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction & Court fees? OPP 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable due to act and conduct of the plaintiff? OPD 7. Whether the birth entry of the plaintiff in the service record cannot be corrected under law? OPD 8. Whether the notice u/s 90 is not legal and valid? OPD 9. Relief.” 2 Regular Second Appeal No.2841 of 1988 The plaintiff examined Kuldip Singh, Clerk from the office of Municipal Council, Nabha as PW-1, who brought the register of births and proved the entry made at serial number 340. However, in cross- examination, he stated that he joined Nabha office in 1960 and there was no index on the register. He further stated that the concluding index was on the separate paper and was separate from the pages of the register. Ram Jas Jain, paternal uncle of the plaintiff-appellant, appeared as PW-2. He stated that he was 12 years old at the time of marriage of parents of the plaintiff-appellant and the plaintiff-appellant was born on 13th January, 1931. In cross-examination, he stated that he could not definitely tell as to when earlier to the month of October 1985, he had met the plaintiff-appellant. Rattan Lal son of Muni Lal appeared as PW-3 and stated that he was a relative of the plaintiff-appellant. In the examination in-chief, he stated that he did not remember the date of birth of the plaintiff-appellant, but he was born on Lohri day. Amrit Lal, another relative of the plaintiff-appellant, appeared as PW-4 and stated that the plaintiff-appellant was born in the month of Poh/Magh, but he did not remember the date. Plaintiff-appellant himself appeared as PW-5 and reiterated that he became aware of his actual date of birth in the month of October 1985, when he went to meet his uncle Ram Jas Jain. Shanti Devi appeared as PW-6. In cross-examination, she stated that she could not tell the year of birth of the plaintiff. Surjit Singh, Superintendent from the office of Chief Engineer, PWD Patiala appeared as DW-1 and proved the service record of the plaintiff-appellant. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court had dismissed the suit. The Court held that the plaintiff-appellant was born in the house of his grandfather, but the name of grandfather of the plaintiff-appellant 3 Regular Second Appeal No.2841 of 1988 was not noticed in the entry and even the name of his mother was also not recorded in the relevant column. It was further held that the copy of entry Ex.P1 in no way relates to birth of the plaintiff. Aggrieved against the same, plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal. The lower appellate Court also dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove that he was born on 31st January, 1931. Counsel for the appellant has formulated following questions as substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court: 1. Whether the findings of the courts below are against the evidence available on record? 2. Whether there is any limitation for correction of birth entry? 3. Whether Ex.P-1 has left any reason for the courts below to give adverse findings? 4. Whether the evidence of the plaintiff remains unrebuttable? 5. Whether the birth entry is liable to be corrected? I have noticed the broad contents of the evidence led by the plaintiff-appellant. All the witnesses examined by him have failed to state the exact date of his birth. No reliance can be placed upon the testimony of Ram Jas Jain PW-2, who disclosed the date of birth to the plaintiff only in the month of October 1985, i.e. just before his retirement. He was a close relative of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was occasionally meeting him. It is improbable, unnatural and unconvincing that Ram Jas Jain would not have disclosed the date of birth to the plaintiff earlier. Apparently, he is a made-up witness. Rattan Lal PW-3 in examination in-chief stated that he did not remember the date of birth of the plaintiff but he was born on Lohri day. Amrit Lal Jain PW-4 also stated that the plaintiff was born in the month of Poh/Magh, but he also did not remember the date. Shanti Devi 4 Regular Second Appeal No.2841 of 1988 PW-6 also stated in her cross-examination that she was not able to tell the date and year of birth of the plaintiff. Another feature, which this Court cannot discard, is that the plaintiff-appellant was to superannuate on 31st May, 1986. He filed the suit in the month of August 1985. Both the Courts below have rightly held that no reliance can be placed upon the entry Ex.P1, as authenticity of the same cannot be vouchsafed. The courts below have given valid reasons for not placing reliance upon the entry Ex.P1. A concurrent finding of fact has been given by both the Courts below. This Court will not do re- appreciation or re-appraisal of the evidence. No substantial question of law, as formulated by counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, arises for consideration of this Court, as they only call for formulating another opinion on the basis of the evidence led by the plaintiff, which, I have already held, is not trustworthy. Hon’ble the Apex Court, in ‘Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh v. Megh Raj Garg and another’ (2010) 6 SCC 482, considering the entire case law, came to a conclusion that correction of the date of birth sought near the retirement should not be entertained by the courts, as delay in approaching the Court in itself is a factor, which should be construed against the person seeking such relief. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 2, 2010 rps 5