Service Law – Respondent was appointed as trainee in appellant’s company – His date of birth in service record was 04.03.1950 – However, he claims that he had declared his date of birth as 20.01.1955 in terms of entry contained in his matriculation certificate – In 2009, just prior to his retirement he sought change of date of birth in the records – Declined by the appellants – Respondent retired on 31.03.2010 and after lapse of four years from the retirement, he filed writ petition before High Court – High Court directed the appellants to make appropriate corrections and pass consequential orders – Division Bench limited the attendant benefits payable to the respondent – Held: If a particular date of birth is entered in the service register, a change sought cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during entire service – In the instant case, as on the date of joining in 1982 and as also in 1987 when the respondent had an opportunity to fill up the Nomination Form and rectify the defect if any, he had indicated the date of birth as 04.03.1950 – He reiterated the same when Provident Fund Nomination Form was filled in 1998 which corresponds to the date of birth entered in the service register as on the date of commencement of the employment – Thus, merely because a verification was made from the Bihar School Examination Board and even if it was confirmed that the date of birth was 20.01.1955 such change at that stage was not permissible – It is only after more than 30 years from the date of his joining service, for the first time in 2009 he had made the representation – Respondent also did not avail the judicial remedy immediately thereafter, before retirement – Indulgence shown to the respondent by the High Court was not justified – Impugned order set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 If a particular date of birth is entered in the service register, a change sought cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during entire service. The respondent entered service on 01.03.1982. The date of birth entered as 04.03.1950 has remained on record from the said date. In the instant case, as on the date of joining and as also in the year 1987 when the respondent had an opportunity to fill up the Nomination Form and rectify the defect if any, he had indicated the date of birth as 04.03.1950 and had further reiterated the same when Provident Fund Nomination Form was filled in 1998. It is only after more than 30 years from the date of his joining service, for the first time in the year 2009 he had made the representation. Further the respondent did not avail the judicial remedy immediately thereafter, before retirement. Instead, the respondent retired from service on 31.03.2010 and even thereafter the writ petition was filed only in the year 2014, after four years from the date of his retirement. In that circumstance, the indulgence shown to the respondent by the High Court was not justified. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.6172 of 2014 and the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.115 of 2018 are not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside. [Paras 7, 12-14][606-B-C; 606-C-E]
Kamta Pandey v. M/s BCCI & Ors. [2007] 3 JLJR 726; State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 423 : [2010] 14 SCR 752; State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC
664 : [2011] 11 SCR 444; Factory Manager Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Laxman (2020) 3 SCC 419; M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v. Ram Samugh Yadav & Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 421 – referred to.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. v. Chhota Birasa Uranw (2014) 12 SCC 570 : [2014] 4 SCR 887 – distinguished.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.