* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +W. P.Nos. 13674 & 13736 OF 2008 % 27.06.2008 Between: B. Sri Hari Gupta ..... PETITIONER AND Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd., Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER : Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy. < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. (2004) 3 SCC 394 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W. P.Nos. 13674 & 13736 OF 2008 COMON ORDER: The petitioner filed these two writ petitions, in the context of his date of birth and the consequential date of retirement, on superannuation. The petitioner joined the service of the Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd., the respondent herein, as a Junior Engineer on 7.10.1978. He earned promotion and occupied various positions. His date of birth was mentioned in the service records, as 2.6.1948. The petitioner made a representation, dated 31.8.2007, to the respondent, with a request to correct his date of birth as 30.7.1949, in his service register. The basis of his claim was that in his school records, the date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 2.6.1948, on account of incorrect information furnished by his paternal uncle, and in the year 1974, he approached the Court of Principal District Munsif, Tenali, by filing O.S.No.56 of 1974, against the Andhra University, for correction of date of birth in Matriculation Certificate, and that the suit was decreed on 4.10.1974. He states that though the decree became final, the Andhra University did not take steps, for quite some time. He requested the respondent to act upon the judgment and decree in O.S.No.56 of 1974. Simultaneously, he pursued the matter with the Andhra University also. Duplicate certificate in Matriculation examination was issued to the petitioner on 19.11.2007, with the corrected date of birth. Separate proceedings, dated 28.12.2007, were also issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Complaining that in spite of correction of date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate, the respondent did not grant any relief, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13674 of 2008, with a prayer to direct the respondent, to correct the date of birth. After examining the representation dated 31.8.2007, submitted by the petitioner, the respondent issued a reply, dated 26.6.2008. It was mentioned that not only while entering the service, but also at subsequent stages, the latest being while submitting pension claim form in 2006, the petitioner furnished his date of birth as 2.6.1948, and in that view of the matter, his request for correction of the same to 30.7.1949, cannot be acceded to. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13736 of 2008. Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously argued that soon after his client became aware of the inaccuracy of the date of birth in the school records, he filed a suit before the competent Civil Court, and obtained a decree. He submits that acting upon the decree, the Andhra University, which issued the Matriculation Certificate, corrected the date of birth, and the respondent ought to have made necessary corrections in the service records. He submits that there is no justification, on the part of the respondent, in not acceding to the request of the petitioner. Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the entries in the service records were made, on the basis of the particulars and information furnished by the petitioner in his own handwriting, and as late as in 2006 also, he mentioned the date of birth as 2.6.1948. He submits that the request for correction of dates of birth, at the fag end of service, cannot be entertained. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent in the year 1978, as an Assistant Engineer. At that time, he not only entered his date of birth in the application form as 2.6.1948, but also enclosed the relevant certificates, which contain the date of birth. The normal practice is that once an employee furnishes his date of birth and the same is entered in the service records, it cannot be altered, except where the circumstances provided for under the relevant service rules, exist. In some cases, period is stipulated, within which application is to be made for correction of date of birth in the service records. Courts have treated the date of birth, and thereby the age of an employee, as one of the conditions of his contract with the employee. Notwithstanding the stringency, as to the time, within which application for alteration of date of birth must be maintained, instances exist, where applications made at a later pint of time, also can be entertained, if the mistake or inaccuracy as to the date of birth, can squarely be attributed to the employer. Such a facility would not be available, if the date of birth in the service records accords with the particulars furnished by the employee. The sole basis for the claim of the petitioner is a decree in O.S.No.56 of 1974. It is not as if the decree did not exist, when the petitioner entered the service. Even after entering to service, he did not take any steps to get the decree executed. He maintained stoic silence till 31.8.2007. The decree became inexecutable, decades before that time. 29 years after entering the service and 33 years from the date of decree, the petitioner came forward with an application to alter his date of birth in the service records. Even by the time he made the application, things remained at the same place, where they stood earlier. It was some time in December that the date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate was changed. Assuming that the change affected by the Andhra University in the certificate, after more than quarter of a century, is valid, legal and genuine, such a change cannot be treated as binding on the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF PUNJAB v. S.C.CHADHA [1]. Apart from not supporting the case of the petitioner, the said judgment renders the claim of the petitioner, unacceptable. The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of the employees coming forward with the applications for alteration of date of birth, at the fag end of service. As recently as in the year 2006, the petitioner submitted his pension papers, indicating his date of birth as 2.6.1948. It was only after submission of pension papers that the petitioner thought of approaching the respondent for alteration of date of birth. Such a course cannot be countenanced. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 27th June 2008 Note: L.R. copies be marked. (B/o) PAN [1] (2004) 3 SCC 394