
Haryana Right to Service Commission takes strict action in death certificate case.
Chandigarh, July 17- Haryana Right to Service Commission has decided to take strict action against a citizen of Faridabad for not getting timely service and issuing birth certificate instead of death certificate. The Commission found that after the death of the father of the appellant on March 19, 2025, he had registered for death certificate on March 22, 2025, but due to negligence of the concerned office, they issued birth certificate of some other child.
Chandigarh, July 17- Haryana Right to Service Commission has decided to take strict action against a citizen of Faridabad for not getting timely service and issuing birth certificate instead of death certificate. The Commission found that after the death of the father of the appellant on March 19, 2025, he had registered for death certificate on March 22, 2025, but due to negligence of the concerned office, they issued birth certificate of some other child.
A spokesperson of the Commission said that during the investigation, it was found that the process of issuing the certificate was being done by the clerk in the NIT Zone-Judge office of the Municipal Corporation Faridabad, who mistakenly uploaded the wrong certificate and closed the registration.
The Commission, considering this matter as serious administrative negligence, has imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000 on the employee under Section 17(1)(e) of the Haryana Right to Service Act, 2014 and has also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000 to the appellant. A total amount of Rs. 6,000 will be deducted from the salary of the concerned work clerk for July 2025 and deposited and paid in August 2025 as per the rules.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad has been directed to comply with this order and send a report to the Commission by 11th August 2025. The appellant has been asked to send the bank details to the Commission and the Corporation office as soon as possible so that the payment amount can be sent to his account.
The Commission also found in this case that the FGRA at the district level And the SGRA officers did not exercise due sensitivity in the disposal of the complaint and more attention was paid to technical hurdles in the process. The Commission assured that in future, priority would be given to the disposal of public complaints by such officers.
