As State Disobeys Clear Cut Order Of Court, HP HC Expresses Disquiet [Read Order]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court stopped short of issuing contempt notice against a government officer, only because he stands retired, for rejecting a man's representation for correction of date of birth despite "clear cut" findings of Single Judge in favour of the petitioner.

A bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Chander Bhushan Barowalia expressed its displeasure while dismissing the appeal of the government against the order of the Tribunal whereby the petition of a man seeking correction of his date of birth was allowed.

The petitioner had sought correction of his date of birth from May 28, 1957 to May 28, 1958.

The petitioner had explained the delay as he said that he came to know about the error in the date of birth only on the death of his father, who was serving in the army, and after getting a certificate from the army authorities.

The single judge had held that though an employee can approach the appointing authority for correction of date of birth within five years of joining of service, in this case, the period is to be counted not from the date of entry in government service but from the date of knowledge that the year of birth is not correctly recorded.

Despite the order of the court, the authorities rejected the petitioner's representation citing delays.

"Once that be so, then obviously no fault can be found in the order of the Tribunal whereby the date of birth of the petitioner has been ordered to be corrected, especially when the petitioner had produced primary evidence in support of his date of birth," held the high court.

The Additional Advocate General once again argued that the claim of the respondent was barred by delay and latches.

"It was not permissible for the petitioners to have sat over the order of this court and such an attitude tantamount to contempt of court and arbitrariness as it is not possible for the executive to scrutinize the order of the court.

"The matter had been sent back to the petitioners for a decision, which was required to be considered only on the merits of the case and it was not at all open to the officers of the petitioners to have simply rejected the case on the basis of delay and latches, which finding had already been rendered by the Learned Single Judge against the petitioners," said the Division Bench.

"In fact, such an attitude tantamounts to contempt of the court and arbitrariness and as held by the Supreme Court, it is not permissible for the executive to scrutinize the order of the court.

"We would have not hesitated to issue contempt notice to the officer of the petitioners, who decided the representation but we refrain from doing so since the concerned officer, as informed by the State, stands retired," it observed.

Click here to download the Order