In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 1742 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: May 27, 2009 Subhash Chander Aneja .. Appellant Vs. The Registrar, Panjab University, Chandigarh and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. N.K. Suneja, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J This is appellant's second appeal against the judgment dated 5.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, dismissing the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff (herein referred as 'the appellant') for correction of the date of birth. The plaintiff has come up with the allegations that he was known as Manohar Lal at the time of his birth and his actual date of birth was 15.9.1953, whereas, it was recorded wrongly as 1.5.1951 in the certificate of Higher Secondary Part-I Examination issued by the respondent-Punjab University, Chandigarh. Thus, he stressed for declaring his date of birth as 15.9.1953. He has also taken shelter of the judgment Updesh Kumar etc. vs. Prithvi Singh and others, 2001 (1) LJR 789; Resham Singh vs. Union of India and another, 2008 (1) R&J 330; State of Punjab and another vs. Megh Raj Garg 2003 (1) R&J 36; Ashgar Khan vs. Union of India 1998 (4) R&J 118. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit. Heard. The appellant has not led any sufficient evidence in order to establish that he was actually known as Manohar Lal at the time of his birth. No reason has been assigned as to why and under what circumstances his earlier name was changed. Ram Piari (PW3) wife of late Sher Chand has no where stated in her affidavit Ex.PW3/A that plaintiff was also known as Manohar Lal at the time of his birth. Thus, the said certificate (Ex.P2) relating to Manohar Lal cannot be held to be in any way connected with the R.S.A. No. 1742 of 2009 -2- *** appellant. Any way, for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the date of birth of the appellant was 15.9.1953, and he was issued certificate of Higher Secondary Part-I Examination in the year 1968, whereas, the present suit was filed for correction of date of birth against the Punjab University on 17.10.2005. During this period from 1968 to 2005, the plaintiff never moved any application for correction of the date of birth. The plaintiff did not represent to the university before filing of the present suit by moving application to that effect. As such, at the fag end of his retirement in 2009, the appellant cannot come to contend that his date of birth was not correct particularly when he continued getting benefits of the said date of birth as recorded in the papers, at the time of getting appointment and promotions. Thus, the matter also suffers from delay and laches. The Apex Court in case Secy. & Commr., Home Deptt. & Ors. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155, has observed as under :- “7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not to pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the R.S.A. No. 1742 of 2009 -3- *** respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or other has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever, any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of a strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their dates of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The court or the tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of impeachment character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior.” There is catina of judgments delivered by the Apex Court dissuading correction of the date of birth at the fag end of the service career after long years and consistent view has been taken that the correction in the entries made in the Government record on the basis of which Government R.S.A. No. 1742 of 2009 -4- *** servant gets the service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before the retirement or the fag end of his retirement. The Apex Court while discussing chain of judgments took the view that the date of birth on the basis of which party seeking correction continued getting benefit cannot ask for correction of such date of birth at the fag end of his service career. It may further be noticed that every statutory body or a government department has its own rules for correction of the date of birth, but no such back door entry for correction of date of birth could be adopted. The procedure as provided under the department is permissible. It is also not clear as to why the cause of action accrued against Punjab University after a period of 37 years for correction of date of birth particularly when he had not impleaded the party against whom he wanted to use the correct date of birth, therefore, in the absence of disclosing any cause of action the suit was not maintainable. From the aforesaid discussions, it transpires that no substantial question of law arises or is involved in the case. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed. May 27, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge