Holiram v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1810 of 2015 • Holiram S/o Late Ronha Aged About 56 years Working As Gangman In P.W.D. R/o Village Bodhapara, Post - Kanteli, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Publics Works, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.D. Sirpur Bhavan Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

4. Executive Engineer P.W.D. Division Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri PK Bhaduri, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 22/07/2015

1. Petitioner is working as Gangman in the department of PWD, he has preferred this writ petition seeking correction of the entry concerning his Date of Birth (for short 'DOB') in his service-book.

2. The petitioner entered the service on 1.5.1981. While preparing his servicebook, his DOB was mentioned as 1-9-1953. In the service-book the petitioner has appended his thumb impression endorsing the said DOB. Although the petitioner is in service since last 33 years, he did not raise any

dispute about the DOB at the first available opportunity, but has preferred this writ petition in May, 2015.

3. Shri Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the school leaving certificate, issued by the school authorities, where the petitioner studied in class 1st, would substantiate that his DOB is 12-7-1961.

4. Ordinarily, prayer for correction of entry concerning DOB is not entertained at the fag end of service. Para 84 & 85 of the State Finace Code makes provision concerning DOB of a Government servant. It says that except for correction of clerical mistake, prayer for change in DOB would not be entertained. Even otherwise, petitioner's claims is based on school leaving certificate of Class-1 and not on the basis of any certificate of clinching nature like Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination.

5. It has been settled by the Supreme Court that raising of dispute regarding DOB at the fag end of service is not permissible. (See: U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri1 and State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Premlal Shrivas2)

6. For the foregoing, there is no substance in the writ petition. It fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra ashu (2005) 11 SCC 465 (2011) 9 SCC 664