Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) No. 2900/2013 May 06, 2013 SHRI RAM AVTAR ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for respondent No.3.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed by one Sh.Ram Avtar who is presently the employee of respondent No.3/M/s. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited. Petitioner seeks change of his date of birth from 3.6.1953 to 5.12.1955. Alongwith the writ petition, the petitioner has filed his LTC applications as also medical record book showing that the petitioner’s date of birth as 5.12.1955. It is also argued that the petitioner had given an affidavit 2013:DHC:2310 way back in the year 1978 showing his date of birth as 5.12.1955. Finally, it is argued that as regards one Sh. Jwala Prasad his date of birth has been taken as per the affidavit filed whereas the petitioner is discriminated against by not relying upon his affidavit of his date of birth given at the time for his joining.
2. It is settled law that no person has a right at the fag end of his service to seek alteration in his date of birth. In fact the petitioner has deliberately concealed material documents inasmuch as counsel for the respondent No.3 has filed in Court the letter of the petitioner given about 13 years back on 13.9.2000 whereby date of birth was sought to be corrected to 5.12.1955 and which representation of the petitioner was rejected way back on 22.9.2000. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision dated 22.9.2000 refusing to correct his date of birth, petitioner ought to have immediately approached the Court thereafter and not after about 13 years in the year 2013.
3. I may also note that the record which is relied upon by the petitioner of LTC applications and medical record are in fact filled in by the petitioner himself as per the statement made before me by the counsel for the respondent No.3, and the petitioner therefore cannot rely on self-serving documents which have been conveniently filled in by him, more so because his representation for change of date of birth has been rejected way back in the year
2000.
4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. MAY 06, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne