Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 – Change of date of birth – In the service records, the date of birth of the respondent no.1 was 04.01.1960 – The respondent no.1 sought to change it to 24.01.1961 – Pursuant thereto, respondent no.1 filed suit and it was opposed by the appellant-corporation relying on the 1974 Act and resolution dated 17.05.1991 – The trial Court dismissed the suit – However, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 and observed that it was highly impossible that respondent no.1 would have availed the remedy within three years from the date of the joining of the service or within one year from the date of commencement of Act, 1974 – Held: The view of the High Court cannot be accepted – Respondent no.1, being the employee of the corporation, was supposed to know the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the corporation – Ignorance of law cannot be an excuse to get out of the applicability of the statutory provisions – Respondent No.1employee also was not entitled to any relief or change of date of birth on the ground of delay and laches as the request for change of date of birth was made after lapse of 24 years since he joined the service.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant corporation adopted the provisions of the Act, 1974 by resolution dated 17.05.1991. Therefore, as such the request for change of date of birth as per the Act, 1974 as adopted by the appellant-corporation in the year 1991 was required to be made by respondent No.1 – employee within a period of one year from 17.05.1991 being the employee of the appellant-corporation. However, respondent No.1-employee made the request for change of date of birth vide notice dated 23.06.2007 i.e. after the lapse of 24 years since he joined the service and nearly after the lapse of 16 years from the date of adoption of enactment (Act, 1974) by the appellant-corporation. The High Court in the impugned judgment and order has observed that nothing is on record that resolution dated 17.05.1991 adopting the Act, 1974 was brought to the notice of the employee and that therefore respondent No.1-employee might not be aware of the applicability of the Act, 1974. Aforesaid cannot be accepted. Being the employee of the corporation, he was supposed to know the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the corporation. Ignorance of law cannot be an excuse to get out of the applicability of the statutory provisions. [Para 8][642-B-E]
2. Even otherwise and assuming that the reasoning given by the High Court for the sake of convenience is accepted in that case also even respondent No.1-employee was not entitled to any relief or change of date of birth on the ground of delay and laches as the request for change of date of birth was made after lapse of 24 years since he joined the service. At this stage, few decisions of this court on the issue of correction of the date of birth are required to be referred to. [Para 9][642-F-G]
3. Considering the various decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under: (i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. [Para 10][647-A-C]
4. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this court in various decisions, the application of the respondent for change of date of birth was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also and therefore as such respondent employee was not entitled to the decree of declaration and therefore the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and not tenable at law. [Para 11][647-C-D] Home Deptt. v. R.Kirubakaran, (1994) 1 Suppl. SCC
155 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 376; State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 : [2011] 11 SCR 444; Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others v. R. Basavaraju (2016) 15 SCC 781; Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC
411 : [2020] 2 SCR 597 – relied on.
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.