IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 129 of 2010. Decided on: September 22, 2010. H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. & anr. …..Appellants. Versus Bardu Ram. ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,, Judge. For the Appellants: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The respondents-Corporation have come up in appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 19.4.2010 in CWP(T) No. 3059 of 2008. The issue pertains to the correction of the date of birth. According to the writ petitioner, his correct date of birth is 7.2.1951 whereas, according to the appellant-Corporation, the date of birth is 19.2.1949. Learned Single Judge, after perusing the records and particularly School Leaving Certificate, admittedly produced before the appellants in 1995, more than 10 years prior to the retirement, allowed the Writ Petition with direction to grant the consequential benefits, though he had been retired based on the date of birth as originally entered in the service book, in the year 2007. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that as per the Financial Rules, the date of birth once entered in the service book cannot be changed after two years of entry in service. But the hard fact in this case is that the original entry of date of birth as February, 1949, in the service book, is not based on any authentic record; it is based only on the medical certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of entry in service. We find from the records that there was a contemporaneous record produced by the petitioner to the 2 effect that his date of birth actually is 7.2.1951 and that is a School Leaving Certificate. There is no dispute as to the genuineness of that Certificate. The dispute mainly pertains to the steps taken for correcting the date of birth in the service records. It is seen from the records that there is some endorsement in the year 1995 regarding the revised date of birth. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it is not a duly authenticated endorsement. But, all these contentions taken by the appellants will have to be viewed in the background of the educational qualification and the post held by the writ petitioner under the appellants. He is only a semi-literate person in the Class-III category, though originally he entered the service as Class IV, unskilled-worker. It is seen from one of the seniority lists, that the date of birth of the petitioner had been shown as 1951. Yet, another contention of the appellants is that the Corporation had once rejected the case of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth and that order has not been challenged and the writ petition is not maintainable for other reliefs. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the of date of birth in the seniority list published during the year 1995, was shown as 1951 and according to the petitioner he was under the impression that his date of birth would be taken by the Corporation as 1951 only. It is submitted that only when he was served with the notice on 15.2.2007, informing that he would be retiring by the end of that month. Petitioner though moved the erstwhile Tribunal, we do not find that the petitioner had the benefit of any interim order and consequently the writ petitioner has not actually worked from February 2007 to February, 2009, in the Corporation. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and on going through the records, we are of the view that it will only be in the interest of justice and fairness that the whole dispute be given a quietus in a fair and equitable 3 manner. As already referred to by us in this judgment, the writ petitioner had admittedly produced one authentic record of his date of birth showing that date of birth is 7.2.1951. Admittedly, there was no other record showing the actual date of birth of the petitioner. The entry made by the Corporation originally is only on the basis of the medical certificate. The authentic record having been produced, the Corporation should have taken steps to look into the matter and take an appropriate action, particularly taking note of the fact that the writ petitioner is only a semi-literate Class- IV employee at the relevant time. It is also ascertained from the Corporation that in case the date of birth is taken as 1951, the total benefits that would be payable to the petitioner, sans the back wages would be only around 1, 50,000/-, apart from the impact on the pensionary benefits. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the writ petitioner be paid, by the appellants, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- ( rupees two lacs ) in full and final settlement of all his claims from the Corporation in respect of his service which is directed by learned Single Judge to be taken as service rendered up to 28.2.2009 although the writ petitioner had actually gone out of service on 28.2.2007. Steps will also be taken by the parties to get the date of birth corrected in the records maintained by the Employees Provident Fund Organization. The date of birth will be correctly entered in the records as 7.2.1951. The date of retirement will be taken as 28.2.2009. The employer’s share of contribution for the said period of two years will be paid by the appellants to the Employees Provident Fund, in addition to the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, mentioned above. The writ petitioner will pay the employee’s share for the said period of two years and thereafter the E.P.F. Organization will take the required further steps in the matter. In case, there is any liability by way of interest to be paid to the Provident Fund Organization, that liability shall be borne by the respective parties, proportionate to their respective shares. The appeal is disposed of, as 4 above. We make it clear that this judgment is rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and this shall not be treated as a precedent. The payments as above, shall be made within a period of one month from today. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. September 22, 2010. ( Justice Kuldip Singh), (karan) Judge.