IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11398 of 2006 RAM NARAYAN YADAV, son of Late Kanak Lal Yadav, resident of village Kamaljari, P.S. Saur Bazar, O.P. Patar Ghat, District Saharsa. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Supaul. 5. The Civil Surgeon- Cum- Chief Medical Officer, Supaul. 6. The Incharge Medical Officer, Chhatapur, District Supaul. 7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 2 27.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The basic question raised in this writ application is as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner should have been treated to be 4.1.1942 as claimed by the petitioner to have been entered in his service book or 18.3.1939 as has been ultimately recorded by the authority in the service book. Normally, a writ application would be wholly inappropriate remedy for deciding such disputed question of fact, inasmuch as, the petitioner’s claim for entering in the service on 1.8.1958 with his date of birth as 4.1.1942 would render him as a minor on the date of his appointment. The difficulty, however, for the petitioner does not end there. The petitioner has also not produced any document to show his date of birth as 4.1.1942 on the basis of which such entry cold be made in his service book at the time of his initial appointment on 1.8.1958. The only document which has been referred to and relied upon a School certificate produced by the petitioner in this 2 writ application which is dated 15.4.1984 i.e. a document coming into existence after 26 years of appointment of the petitioner. At least that document, the School leaving certificate dated 15.4.1984, cannot be an authentic proof of date of birth of the petitioner as 4.1.1942. Further difficulty for the petitioner is that when he wants to assert that his date of birth was 4.1.1942, as originally allegedly entered in his service book, he has to rely only on his own memory because in the such column of date of birth of the service book of the petitioner the same was found to be inundated with ink which would make it impossible to make out as to what was the actual date of birth of the petitioner recorded therein, inasmuch as, in the date of 4th January the figure 4 remains but year of birth has been totally obliterated by placing ink all over it. Thus, in absence of any clinching evidence of the petitioner’s date of birth being 4.1.1942 when the Civil Surgeon had noticed this discrepancy in the service book and he had constituted a committee which after verifying the fact that he could not have been appointed on the basis of date of his birth of 4.1.1942 on account of his being only 16 years of age in 1958, had fixed the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.3.1939 and according to which the petitioner had also retired from service on 31.3.1997 nothing can be done in this wholly belated writ petition. It has to be kept in mind that entire retirement benefits was calculated and paid to the petitioner on the basis of his date of birth of 18.3.1939 3 whereafter the petitioner has filed this writ application on 14.9.2006, i.e, after more than 9-1/2 years of his retirement claiming that his date of birth should now be corrected/restored to 4.1.1942 and consequently he be allowed payment of salary for the period April, 1997 to January, 2000 and his entire benefit may be recalculated. Such wholly belated prayer giving no reasons for the unexplained delay and that too in absence of any authentic proof of his date of birth cannot be entertained by this Court. That being so, this writ application has no merit and is, accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)