HC rejects plea on date of birth correction, upholds Chandigarh MC’s decision
A Chandigarh MC employee claimed that her date of birth had been wrongly recorded as May 8, 1961, in her service record, whereas her actual date of birth is October 10, 1969
While observing that a request for a change of date of birth is not a matter of right, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the decision of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation rejecting an employee’s plea for correction in date of birth made beyond the prescribed period under the rules.
The petitioner, Neelam, an employee of the Municipal Corporation, had challenged orders dated October 10, 2019, and August 26, 2020, whereby her request to change her date of birth from May 8, 1961, to October 10, 1969, was rejected.
She stated that she was appointed as a safai karamchari on a regular basis on January 25, 2017, on compassionate grounds following the death of her husband on February 18, 2008, and was later confirmed in service on June 5, 2020.
She claimed that her date of birth had been wrongly recorded as May 8, 1961, in her service record, whereas her actual date of birth is October 10, 1969. In support, she relied on a school leaving certificate dated April 5, 1988, and submitted an application for correction on October 7, 2019, which was rejected by the MC.
Counsel for the respondents did not dispute the school leaving certificate but argued that, under Rule 2.5 and Note 3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, any request for change of date of birth must be made within two years of appointment. No such request can be entertained after the expiry of this period.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa observed that the law is well settled that such requests can only be considered in accordance with the applicable rules. A perusal of the rules makes it clear that no request for a change of date of birth can be entertained after two years from the date of appointment or joining.
Holding that the request was not made within the stipulated period and that such a claim is not a matter of right, the court found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
