MOIRANGTHEM IBOMCHA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Kh. Ajit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms. Monomala Devi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction from this court for correcting his date of birth as 01 -02 -1965 instead of 01 -03 -1955 and 01 -03 -1967 as per the letter dated 04 -04 -2012 of the then Chief Engineer, IFCD. The present case is one of those cases where the Court finds it difficult to decide the issue involved herein for want of materials after the same being destroyed by fire.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that on 18 -09 -1990 a fire broke out in the officer destroying the service book of the petitioner along with that of other staff and therefore, the reconstruction of petitioner's service book was the only option. The question is as to how best could it be done in the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, at the time of joining his service in the year 1983, had submitted the original certificates including the certificate of having passed the Prabodh Examination claiming his date of birth as 01 -02 -1965. It might be true and is quite natural because without date of birth, the respondents would not have allowed the petitioner to join his service but since the document having been destroyed by fire, there was no basis on the part of the respondents to verify the correctness thereof. Moreover, the duplicate copy of the Prabodh Examination Certificate produced by the petitioner did not help at all, as it did not contain the exact date of birth. The contention of the State Government is also not sustainable in law and can not be upheld. It has been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book was 01 -03 -1955 which is not based on any authentic document. It has further been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that since the application for correction of date of birth was not preferred within 5 (five) years of entry into the service by filing a proper representation, the claim for correction of date of birth from 01 -03 -1955 to 01 -02 -1965 i.e., by reducing the age of superannuation by 12 (twelve) years was not tenable in the eye of law. To substantiate her submission, the learned Government Advocate has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Vs. Megh Raj Garg & anr, reported in : (2010) 6 SCC 482 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter -alia has held that on analysis of the rule makes it very clear that the declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into government service is conclusive and binding on the government servant and that the correction of date of birth recorded in the service book after twelve years of joining the service was clearly misconceived. There can be no dispute about this principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, there is no application being filed by the petitioner, on his own, for correction of his date of birth and as has been stated herein above, the issue regarding correction of petitioner's date of birth arose while reconstructing his service book which had been destroyed by fire. There is no averment anywhere in the pleading that the said incident of fire can be attributed to the petitioner. The determination of petitioner's date of birth became necessary, as he would be entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation.