Discretionary Jurisdiction Of Court cant Be Used To Extend Employee's Service Beyond The Period Entitled : Punjab And Haryana High Court
A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji, while deciding Letters Patent Appeal in the case of Jai Bhagwan vs State of Haryana & others, held that the discretionary jurisdiction of the courts cannot be employed to prolong an employee's tenure beyond...
A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji, while deciding Letters Patent Appeal in the case of Jai Bhagwan vs State of Haryana & others, held that the discretionary jurisdiction of the courts cannot be employed to prolong an employee's tenure beyond the period specified as per their accepted date of birth by the employers.
Background Facts
Jai Bhagwan (Appellant), joined government service in 1989. In 2006, appellant obtained a civil court decree altering his date of birth. Despite the decree, the state of Haryana (Respondent) rejected appellants' request for a change in date of birth in 2017, due to delay in pursuing the request. The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a change in his date of birth, which was dismissed by a Learned Single Judge in 2024. The Learned Single Judge upheld the state's decision, citing Punjab Civil Services Rules and Financial Rules.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the Letters Patent Appeal.
The appellant contended that the civil court decree in 2006, entitled him to change his date of birth. He argued that the state's rejection of his request for a change in date of birth violated the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Appellant further argued that he should not be penalized for a mistake made by the state and for the delay in pursuing his rights.
On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents that the rejection of appellants' request for a change in his date of birth was in accordance with the Punjab Civil Services Rules and Financial Rules (Rules). The respondents further contended that appellants' appeal was filed belatedly and he failed to follow the appropriate legal procedures in seeking redress for his grievance. The respondents argued that appellant had not provided sufficient justification for the delay in pursuing his request for a change in his date of birth.
Findings of the Court
The court observed that appellant obtained a civil court decree in 2006 altering his date of birth but this decree did not automatically entitled him to a change in his date of birth for government service purposes.
The court further observed that appeal was filed at a belated stage, and appellant had not provided sufficient justification for the delay in pursuing his request for a change in his date of birth.
The court held that the rejection of appellants' request for a change in date of birth was in accordance with established Rules, which required such requests to be made within a certain timeframe. The court relied on the case of Union of India vs. Harnam Singh wherein the Supreme Court held that the employee can seek correction in his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth but it must be done without any un-reasonable delay.
The court observed that the discretionary jurisdiction of the court should not be used to extend an employee's service beyond the period entitled according to their accepted date of birth. The court relied on the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. vs. Shri Dinabandhu Majumdar wherein the Supreme Court held that the High Court's extra-ordinary jurisdiction is not meant to make employees of Government to continue in service beyond the period of entitlement according to their date of birth accepted by the employers.
The court held that the appeal was misconceived and filed at a belated stage.
With the aforesaid observations, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
Case No. : LPA-900-2024 (O&M)
Case Name : Jai Bhagwan vs State of Haryana & others
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Birla
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana