Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1442 (AP)

G. Rambabu v. Union of India

2024-10-14

NYAPATHY VIJAY, RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J : Heard Sri K.R.K.V. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner entered in service in the year 1977. In the Service Register, his date of birth was mentioned as 15.02.1954. In the year 2013 he filed representation for correction of the date of birth in the Service Register as 15.02.1959. His representation was rejected on 26.02.2014. He filed OA No.381 of 2014 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, at Hyderabad (in short, the Tribunal). 3. The OA was dismissed by order dated 31.12.2014 against which the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present is not a case for correction of date of birth but only the correction in the 'words' stating that in 'numerical' it was corrected as 15.02.1959. 5. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 6. The submission that the present is a case for correction, only in 'words' to represent the correct 'numerical' is misconceived. From perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is evident that when the petitioner/applicant approached the 4th respondent-Senior Section Engineer (Permanent Way), South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division, seeking for some appointment benefit to his ward, under LARSGESS Scheme, he was informed that under the said scheme, he was not eligible, as his date of birth recorded in the Service Book was 15.02.1954. The applicant then filed representation dated 09.11.2013 that his date of birth was erroneously recorded as 15.02.1954 which was later on corrected as 15.02.1959 in 'numericals' but the correction could not be made in 'words'. The Tribunal has recorded, on perusal of such entry that, such figure i.e., 1959', after correction of 1954' had no initials of any competent authority. Thus, according to the applicant/petitioner himself, 15.02.1954 was the recorded date of birth, which was said to have been corrected but such correction was without any order of any competent authority and that too was only in 'figure' but without any initials. The above said case of the petitioner, was not accepted by the Tribunal, being not convincing. Thus, according to the applicant/petitioner himself, 15.02.1954 was the recorded date of birth, which was said to have been corrected but such correction was without any order of any competent authority and that too was only in 'figure' but without any initials. The above said case of the petitioner, was not accepted by the Tribunal, being not convincing. Further, the Tribunal with respect to the petitioner's School Certificate issued by the Government Elementary School, Kondipalem, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District observed that there was no record in respect of the study of the petitioner in that school and that the Service Register did not disclose anything in respect of the production of any School Certificate at the time of recording of his date of birth. 7. The representation for correction in date of birth was given for the first time in the year 2013. The petitioner entered the service in 1977. 8. In Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja and others, (2021) 12 SCC 27 , the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated, that the application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable and even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches 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. 9. Paras 10 to 12 of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited's case (supra), are reproduced as under : 10. 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. 10.1 In Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155, it is observed and held as under : "7. At this stage, few decisions of this Court on the issue of correction of the date of birth are required to be referred to. 10.1 In Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155, it is observed and held as under : "7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion forever..." 10.2 In State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 , in Paragraph Nos.8 and 12, it is observed and held as under : "8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a Government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the Court or the Tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any Government service. Unless the Court or the Tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the Court or the Tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a Government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 = 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 = (1993) 24 ATC 92). 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were dutybound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book." 10.3 In Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. R. Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781, it is observed as under : "5. The law with regard to correction of date of birth has been time and again discussed by this Court and held that once the date of birth is entered in the service record, as per the educational certificates and accepted by the employee, the same cannot be changed. The law with regard to correction of date of birth has been time and again discussed by this Court and held that once the date of birth is entered in the service record, as per the educational certificates and accepted by the employee, the same cannot be changed. Not only that, this Court has also held that a claim for change in date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag-end of retirement" 10.4 In Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 , of which one of us (Justice A.S. Bopanna) was a party to the Bench has observed and held in Paragraphs 9 and 10 as under : "9. This Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag-end of service is not sustainable. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra and another v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423 , wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder : "16. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465 = 2006 SCC (L&S) 96. In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag-end of the service career. 17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477 = 2006 SCC (L&S) 106, relief was denied to the Government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades. * * * 19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag-end would be at the cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag-end must be discouraged by the Court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp. * * * 19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag-end would be at the cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag-end must be discouraged by the Court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155 = 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 = (1994) 26 ATC 828, reads as under : (SCC Pp.158-59, Para 7) "7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag-end of his service]. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotion forever. ... According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. ... The onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book." 10. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. ... The onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book." 10. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 , it is held as hereunder : "8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a Government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag-end of his career, the Court or the Tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any Government service. Unless the Court or the Tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the Court or the Tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a Government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleepover their rights" (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 = 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 = (1993) 24 ATC 92). * * * 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book." 11. Considering the aforesaid 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. 12. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid 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." 10. We are not satisfied that, it is only a case of correction in the 'words' and the correction in the numerical 1954' was already made as 1959'. In our view it is a case of seeking correction in date of birth, for the first time in the year 2013 at the fag-end of service. We are not satisfied that, it is only a case of correction in the 'words' and the correction in the numerical 1954' was already made as 1959'. In our view it is a case of seeking correction in date of birth, for the first time in the year 2013 at the fag-end of service. In the matters of correction of the date of birth, the applicant has to approach, at the earliest. 11. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.