Murarilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2017

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Murarilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2017
1
WP No.2222/2017
(Murarilal v. State of MP & Others)

07.04.2017
Shri D.S. Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Harish Dixit, learned Government Advocate for
respondents-State.

Heard.

This petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the Executive
Engineer, Water Resources Department Sheopur, vide which the said authority has decided the
petitioner's representation for correction of date of birth. It is the petitioner's case that he had joined
services of the respondents as a daily wager in the year 1973 and in the year 2013 he discovered that
his date of birth is mentioned as 02.03.1955 instead of 25.06.1963. Therefore, he had moved the
authorities for correction of date of birth.

A perusal of the order and the pleadings made in the petition reveal that if the petitioner's
contention that his date of birth 25.06.1963 is accepted, then it will mean that the petitioner was
deployed as daily wage labourer at the age of 10 years in the year 1973, which is legally
impermissible and would have rendered the petitioner to be a child labourer. Further the Executive
Engineer has considered the fact that on 21.01.2013, the petitioner himself had filed an affidavit
showing his date of birth as 02.03.1955 and had further mentioned WP No.2222/2017 (Murarilal v.
State of MP & Others) that he is an illiterate person and he has no documentary evidence like
marksheet etc. in support of his date of birth and had submitted that the affidavit, which he has filed
showing his date of birth as 02.03.1955 is correct. In the light of this fact, the Executive Engineer
had accepted the date of birth of the petitioner to be 02.03.1955 and accordingly the petitioner was
made to superannuate on completing the age of 62 years on 31.03.2017.

Now, the petitioner has come up with a case that his date of birth is 1963 and had filed a certificate
from Primary School Barodakunj, District Sheopur. This certificate is in contraction to the affidavit,
which was filed by the petitioner in the year 2013. There is no justification for filing this certificate
and on face of it, this certificate cannot be accepted because if this certificate is to be accepted, it will
mean that the petitioner had gained employment at the age of 10 years, which is not legally
permissible. In view of such facts, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Executive
Engineer, holding that his correct date of birth is as mentioned in the affidavit enclosed alongwith
the writ petition as Annexure P/2, which was duly filed by him in the year 2013 and the notary had
put his signatures, is correct and the subsequent certificate has been rightly rejected. There is no
illegality WP No.2222/2017 (Murarilal v. State of MP & Others) in the impugned order. Thus, this
petition fails and is hereby dismissed. As this Court would have imposed heavy costs for such
frivolous representation, but on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is a poor superannuated daily rated labourer, no costs is being imposed by way of mercy.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/150480546/ 1

 Murarilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2017

Certified copy as per rules.

(Vivek Agarwal)
meh/ Judge

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/150480546/ 2