Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS versus HARBHAJAN SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State of Punjab & Ors v. Harbhajan Singh - RSA-3789-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 894 (17 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 3789 of 2005 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 10, 2006

State of Punjab and others

.....Appellants

Vs.

Harbhajan Singh

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. D.S. Jandiala, Additional

Advocate General, Punjab,

for the appellants.

Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate

for the Caveator.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The defendants-State of Punjab and others having concurrently lost before both the Courts have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he had joined the Education Department on January 13, 1982 wherein he had indicated his date of birth as June 10, 1955. Later on, it transpired that his correct date of birth as June 10, 1958. Accordingly, he made enquiries and even got a certificate from the Registrar of Deaths and Births. On the basis of the said date of birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Deaths and Births, he applied to the Punjab School Education Board for correction of his date of birth in his matriculation certificate.

After enquiring, the Punjab School Education Board corrected the date of birth in his matriculation certificate. Consequently, he applied to the Department for correction of the date of birth in his service record. The change was not made by the Department, and therefore, he filed the suit.

The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and held that matriculation certificate Ex.P.16 which has been revised by the School Education Board show that his date of birth has been corrected as June 10, 1958.

The date of birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Deaths and Birth also show that the date of birth of the plaintiff was June 10, 1958.

The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and came to the similar conclusion as has been arrived at by the learned first Appellate Court.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

February 10, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.