In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.2102 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:20.9.2011 State of Punjab and others .....Appellants v. Shiv Singh .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This regular second appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab (appellants-defendants) against the judgment and decree dated 11.5.1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the judgment and decree dated 11.1.1988 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Ropar has been allowed. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff (respondent herein) R.S.A. No.2102 of 1988 [2] had joined service of Forest department on 16.3.1949 as Office Daroga. He was later on promoted as Clerk and at the time of filing suit he was holding the post of Superintendent with effect from 29.12.1980. Shiv Singh (plaintiff) (respondent herein) filed suit for declaration that his date of birth was 23.2.1930 and, therefore, he was entitled to remain in service till 28.2.1988 with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from relieving/retiring him from the service and also to direct the defendants (appellants herein) to correct his date of birth. The date of birth of the respondent was entered as 12.3.1929 in his service record on the basis of Matriculation certificate submitted by him at the time of joining the service. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent that when in connection with a visit to some foreign country, he obtained his birth certificate from Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur, he came to know that his date of birth was 23.2.1930. The date of birth i.e. 12.3.1929 as mentioned in his service record was wrongly got entered by his father at the time of his admission in the school and the same continued to be reflected at various stages. He had submitted an application for correction of the date of birth but the same was not accepted and his date of birth was not corrected. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff could get the correction made in respect of his date of birth within prescribed period which is two years and at this later stage, he could not be allowed to get it corrected. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as six issues, however, the main issues whether the date of birth of the plaintiff is 23.2.1980 and as such his date of superannuation is 23.2.1988 as claimed was decided in favour of the plaintiff. However, another issue whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as claimed R.S.A. No.2102 of 1988 [3] was decided against the plaintiff and his suit was dismissed. However, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the first appellate Court by holding that earlier in two cases i.e. of one Joginder Singh was changed from 15.11.1929 to 12.10.1928 vide order dated 16.10.1985 and in another case of Gurcharan Singh, his date of birth was changed from 6.4.1923 to 6.5.1926 vide order dated 21.1.1983. It was observed that in both the cases, the order of retirement were subsequently withdrawn after making the necessary correction. As the defendants-appellants themselves waived the Rule 2.5 relied by them in this case, there was no justification that those rules should be applied to the detriment of the plaintiff. Hence, the decision on issue No.5 was reversed and it was held that the date of birth of the plaintiff in his service record was liable to be corrected and, therefore, it was ordered to be so corrected. The State of Punjab has come in regular second appeal against the order of the first appellate Court. I have heard Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the appellants and Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the records of the case carefully. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that even if there was some mistake in the date of birth of the plaintiff, he could have got corrected the same within the prescribed period and it was too late for him to get it done and by ordering the correction in the date of birth of the plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge had caused grave miscarriage of justice. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in The Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Bhagwan V. Lahane, (1997) 1 SCC R.S.A. No.2102 of 1988 [4] 247 and U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465. On the other learned counsel for the respondent argued that the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar is well reasoned and no interference is called for in the said judgment and decree. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. From the perusal of the records, I am of the opinion that the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court are not sustainable in law. It was not disputed that the respondent did not raise the question of entry of his date of birth till the filing of the suit in the year 1987 from the date of his joining the Government service i.e. on 16..3.1949, which was duly recorded as per his Matriculation certificate. The Supreme Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri (supra) has held as under:- “As per rule any such application is to be made within 2 years of issuing certificate. Application made after 15 years and suit filed after 39 years. Held, having declared date of birth in High School himself, having completed education upto MA and service of four decades, respondent's date of birth could not be changed having recourse to law, education rules, and service rules, at fag end of his service. Suit of respondent is time barred. Moreover as per Rule 2 existing date of birth shall be deemed correct and no application for correction shall be entertained in any circumstances.” A perusal of the above judgments relied upon by the learned counsel R.S.A. No.2102 of 1988 [5] for the appellants shows that the plaintiff-respondent could not be allowed to have corrected his date of birth at the fag end of his service, which was duly entered in his service record as per his Matriculation certificate and as declared by him at the time of entering into Government service. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal succeeds. The same is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court are set aside and that of the learned trial Court are restored. September 20, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*