Service Law – Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Date of Birth – Appellant-employee questioned validity of an order of respondentemployer treating his date of birth as 21st September 1945 – 21st September 1949 was recorded as appellant’s date of birth in his “Service Books” whereas the statutory form, namely, “Form B”, reflected it as 21st September 1945 – Date of birth was relevant for computation of benefits accruing from Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), for which appellant applied and was granted – Appellant’s stand was that his date of birth was 21st September, 1949 and thus, his financial benefits from VRS should have been higher – Contention of respondent-employer that in service books there was error in recording the age of appellant, which had been subsequently corrected – Writ jurisdiction of High Court invoked by appellant was unsuccessful – On appeal, held: This is a case where respondentemployer altered the records at the end of the career of appellant to his detriment on taking unilateral decision that the date of birth specified in appellant’s service book was erroneous, relying on a date disclosed in a statutory form – Version of respondent-employer that service book recordal was a mistake cannot be accepted – Respondent, a public sector unit is expected to act with certain element of responsibility in maintaining the service records of their workmen and to ensure uniformity in particulars concerning individual employees – There is no explanation as to how this mistake occurred and how pay slips continued to be issued carrying the mistaken date of birth for a long time – Further, appellant’s complaint over the dispute was not belated so as to non-suit him on this count alone – VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of property to the employee once application is accepted – Action of respondent-employer lacked in authority of law on two counts – First, it failed for not adhering to the principles of natural justice – The decision not to follow the service book recordal was taken without giving an opportunity of hearing to appellant – Moreover, since in the own records of respondent-employer two dates were shown, under normal circumstances it would have been incumbent on their part to undertake an exercise on application of mind to determine in which of these two records the mistake had crept in – Respondent-employer proceeded on basis of age of the appellant reflected in his service book during the latter’s service tenure and cannot be permitted to fall back on Form “B” which would curtail the VRS benefit of the appellant – Respondents directed to extend benefits of VRS to appellant treating his date of birth as 21 st September 1949.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.The authorities proceeded in this matter in a rather mechanical manner and embarked on a unilateral exercise of correcting the age entry in the service book on their perception that an error was being corrected. This exercise was conducted without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and at the fag end of his service tenure. [Para 12][715-C-D]
2.1. One of the factors that weighed with the High Court was that there was no challenge to entry in the service book, which should have been done within five years as per the DPE guidelines. This reasoning cannot be accepted as the service book contained 21st September 1949 as his date of birth and this was prepared in 1975. Thus, no occasion arose for approaching the employer for making any correction in the service book till 2002. [Para 15][716-C-D]
2.2. Though in the Form “B”, the appellant’s age in 1971 was given as 26 years (the date of birth shown as 21st September 1945), in the subsequent documents the date appearing in service book had been reflected and it was the date reflected in the service book which formed the basis of the pay-slips as also the estimate statement of the appellant’s voluntary retirement benefits. In such circumstances, the appellant’s failure to seek correction in the Form “B” register could be condoned. [Para 17][717-B-C]
3. The employer has taken a stand that the date of birth recorded of the appellant in the service book was an act by mistake. This is a weak explanation. Several subsequent steps were taken by the employer in relation to the appellant’s employment on the basis of the entry in his service book. The employer are the custodian of these records. They acted all along on the basis of the service entries till the appellant took VRS. It has been pleaded by the appellant that at the time of his appointment, the office of the respondent company entered in all their records his date of birth as 21st September 1949. In the light of these facts, the version of the employer that service book recordal was a mistake cannot be accepted. The employer, a public sector unit in this case, was expected to act with a certain element of responsibility in maintaining the service records of their workmen and ensure that there is uniformity in particulars concerning individual employees. There is no explanation as to how this mistake occurred and how pay slips continued to be issued carrying the mistaken date of birth for such a long time. The High Court ought not to have had accepted “mistake” as the cause for different entries in different documents. [Para 18][717-D-G]
4. Further, it cannot be said that the appellant’s complaint over the dispute was belated so as to non-suit him on this count alone. VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of property to the employee concerned once his application for VRS is accepted. It is the right of a person under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to have the VRS benefit to be given on accurate assessment thereof, the employer here being a public sector unit. If at the time of quantifying the VRS benefit after accepting an employee’s application for voluntary retirement, the employer takes any step that would reduce such benefit in monetary terms, such step shall have to be taken under the authority of law. The action of the employer is lacking in authority of law in this case on two counts. First, it fails for not adhering to the principles of natural justice. The decision not to follow the service book recordal was taken without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The opportunity of hearing of the appellant also accrued because the employer themselves had proceeded on the basis that the later date i.e., 21st September 1949 was the birthdate of the appellant and this was a long established position. Moreover, since in the own records of the employer two dates were shown, under normal circumstances it would have been incumbent on their part to undertake an exercise on application of mind to determine in which of these two records the mistake had crept in. That process would also have had to involve participation of the appellant, which would have been compatible with the principles of natural justice. The very reasoning on which an employee is not permitted to raise age-correction plea at the fag end of his service to extend his tenure should also apply to the employer as well. It is the employer here who had proceeded on the basis of age of the appellant reflected in his service book during the latter’s service tenure and they ought not to be permitted to fall back on the Form “B” which would curtail the VRS benefit of the appellant. [Para 21] [718-E-H; 719-A, C]
5. The principle of estoppel cannot be invoked in this case against the appellant to debar him from claiming the benefit properly computed as per his age reflected in the official documents. Occasion did not arise for the appellant to advert to the age correcting process so far as entry in the Form “B” is concerned as the employer themselves had treated his date of birth to be 21st September 1949 in the service book. [Para 22][719-D-E]
6. In the circumstances, sustaining the view taken by the High Court would result in depriving the appellant of his legitimate benefits under the applicable Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The respondent no.1 proceeded in the case of the appellant in an erroneous manner in treating the appellant’s date of birth to be 21st September 1945. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of VRS to the appellant treating his date of birth as 21st September 1949. [Para 23][719-F, G]
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.