2024:MLHC:584-DB
Serial No.03
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
W.A.No.21/2024
Reserved on: 07.05.2024
Pronounced on: 28.06.2024
Smti. Kloraris@Klolaris Marthong
….. Appellant
Vs.
1. State of Meghalaya represent by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Meghalaya.
2. Managing Director, MTDC Ltd., Shillong.
3. Chief General Manager, MTDC Ltd., Shillong.
….. Respondents
Coram:
S.Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W.Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Bora, Adv with
Ms. E. Nongbet, Adv
For the Respondents : Mrs. T. Yangi B., AAG with
Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.Sr.GA
i) Whether approved for Yes
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes
in press:
J U D G M E N T
(Made by Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)
The present Writ Appeal has been preferred, challenging the
order dated 20.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C)
1 8
Page of
2024:MLHC:584-DB
No.16 of 2023, by which the writ petition was dismissed being devoid
of merits.
2. The case put forth by the appellant was that she had
completed VIII Standard and was employed in Pinewood Hotel, MTDC
Ltd., under the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein (in short ‘the Employer’)
as Chambermaid on 08.09.1986. At the time of applying for the post,
she simply signed the application duly filled in by the Employer with
good faith on them, which contained a wrong date of birth as
14.12.1964. It was submitted that subsequently, she approached the
Court for issuance of birth certificate, which was issued vide order
dated 20.09.2019 and since there was a mistake crept therein, the
appellant again filed one more application for correction of her date of
birth and obtained a birth certificate based on the Court order dated
23.02.2022 from the Shillong Municipal Board on 09.03.2022, in
which, her date of birth was recorded as 21.08.1966.
2.1. It was further submitted that the appellant submitted various
applications dated 28.07.2021, last one of which was 08.12.2022,
requesting the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to alter her date of birth on the
basis of the Court order and the certificate of the Shillong Municipal
Board, which was rejected by the Respondent No.3 on 23.12.2022 and
2 8
Page of
2024:MLHC:584-DB
pursuant to the rejection of her request, the Respondent No.2 had issued
the order dated 23.12.2022 of retirement, which was impugned before
the learned Single Judge by filing WP(C) No.16 of 2023, as the
appellant had suspected the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in
entering a wrong date of birth in the original application.
2.2. It was also submitted that though she had obtained Aadhar
Card, Pan Card and Epic Card in the year 2018, all contained wrong
date of birth based on the previous Court order dated 20.09.2019, which
had happened due to her own mistake in calculating the date from the
certificate issued by the School. Thus, it was her grievance that the
rejection of her representation, despite production of Court order was
illegal and therefore, her retirement from service can, in a sense, be
termed as termination from service, not a retirement. Since all her bona
fide pleas were not considered by the learned Single Judge, the
appellant is before this Court.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General has contended that
based on the date of birth furnished by the appellant at the time of
joining service, her date of birth was entered in the service record as
14.12.1964, based on which, the impugned order of retirement was
issued, relieving her from service with effect from 31.12.2022. As per
3 8
Page of
2024:MLHC:584-DB
The Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984, any
alteration of date of birth should be made before three years of the
actual superannuation, beyond which, no application can be entertained.
For the sake of convenience, Note to S.R.8(c) is extracted hereunder:
Commissioner and Heads of Departments may
“S.R.8(c) –
alter the recorded date of birth in the case of non-gazetted
government servants, provided they are satisfied, after enquiry,
that the previous date was incorrect.
Note:- No alteration in the date of birth of a government
servant should be allowed except in very rare cases where a
manifest mistake has been made. Such mistake should be
rectified at the earliest opportunity in the course of periodical
re-attestation of the entries in the first page of Service Book.
In no case request for change in the date of birth of a
government servant made on a date within three years of the
date of his actual superannuation should be entertained.
”
4. Learned Additional Advocate General has further contended
that the petitioner, having failed to submit a representation within five
years from the date of joining the service or before three years of her
actual superannuation, cannot at a later point of time, seek alteration of
her date of birth by taking her own sweet time, which is against the
provisions of the Rules stated supra.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material documents available on record.
6. The appellant had studied up to VIII Standard and secured a
job in Pinewood Hotel, MTDC Ltd., based on the qualification acquired
4 8
Page of
2024:MLHC:584-DB
by her. The grievance of the petitioner was that it was the employer,
who had filled up the application with the wrong date of birth as
14.12.1964, which she was not aware at that time. Be that as it my, this
Court cannot give a go-by to the provisions of the Rules, which
prescribe outer time limit of three years before retirement to entertain an
application for correction of date of birth. Even according to the
petitioner, the first application with the request to correct her date of
birth was submitted only in the year 2021, whereas her actual date of
superannuation fell on 31.12.2022 based on the date of birth furnished
by her initially. That apart, she was not clear as to her actual date of
birth for the reason that she had stated that due to arithmetic error in
calculating her age, she was unable to provide the correct date of birth,
which had resulted in obtaining an order from the Court on 20.09.2019
by indicating a wrong date of birth and thereafter, she had approached
the Court and got an order, duly mentioning her date of birth as
21.08.1966. The petitioner had already attained the age of
superannuation as early as on 31.12.2022. In Tamil Nadu, no
Government Servant is entitled to seek for alteration of date of birth
beyond five years of entry into service as per Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu
State and Subordinate Service Rules, whereas The Meghalaya
5 8
Page of
2024:MLHC:584-DB
Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984 permits to carry out
such correction till the last moment, i.e., before three years of an
employee’s actual retirement.
7. One of us (CJ), while sitting singly at the Madras High Court,
elaborately dealt with the issue in respect of correction of date of birth
in the following cases and held as under:
i) S. Indhumathi vs. The Chief Secretary to Government,
Chennai and others [W.P.No.16510 of 2018] decided on 11.07.2018;
“7. It may be true that the petitioner was born on
17.07.1997, but for the purpose of entry into the school, the
parents would have given the Date of Birth of the petitioner
as 17.05.1997. If the actual Date of Birth 17.07.1997 is taken
into account, then the entire qualification obtained by the
petitioner/candidate will have to go, as she could not have
been admitted in I Std. based on the date of birth, namely
17.07.1997. In order to admit the petitioner/student into the
School, the Date of Birth has been corrected as 17.05.1997
and that the same continued till the completion of her XII
Std. The student could not, later, on the ground that the
parents have given the wrong Date of Birth and that needs to
be altered, and that for the fault of the parents, the
child/student should not be affected, cannot be accepted. If
such a contention is going to be accepted, and that the
petitioner wants alteration of the Date of Birth as 17.07.1997,
as stated supra, the entire qualification itself vanishes, as the
student has no locus-standi to enter I Std. based on the Date
of Birth as 17.07.1997.”
6 8
Page of
2024:MLHC:584-DB
ii) P. Jeyachandran vs. The Director of School Education
Department, Chennai and others [W.P. (MD) No.15490 of 2020]
decided on 06.11.2020;
6. The Date of birth entered in corporation record or
“
municipality etc., may be correct. But the date of birth
given to the school alone has to be taken into account for
schooling, employment etc. If the alteration of date of birth
is considered suitably based on the records found in
Corporation/Municipality and later if it is found that upon
consideration the person seeking such alteration was not
eligible to be admitted in the School, entire qualification
would become invalid and appointment secured on the
basis of the said qualification would be non-est in the eye
of law and he /she can be removed from service without
giving any terminal benefits.
”
8. In the present case on hand, the petitioner, having missed the
bus cannot now seek for alteration of her date of birth, as she did not
submit the representation well within time and was able to obtain a
Court order with the correct date of birth only on 23.02.2022. The
petitioner has neither sought alteration of date of birth within five years
of entry into service nor before three years of her actual superannuation.
Hence, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the application made
at the fag end for correction of her date of birth cannot be entertained
and dismissed the Writ Petition, which does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
7 8
Page of
2024:MLHC:584-DB
9. Accordingly, W.A.No.21/2024 fails and is dismissed on the
ground of delay, besides lacking merit acceptance. No costs.
(W. Diengdoh) (S. Vaidyanathan)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
28.06.2024
Lam DR-
“ PS”
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG
LAMPHRANG
KHARCHANDY
KHARCHANDY
Date: 2024.06.28 11:36:07
+05'30'
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT
W.A.No.21 of 2024
8 8
Page of
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)