Date of the Judgment: February 5, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 129
Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can an employee seek a change in their date of birth in service records at the fag end of their career? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where an employee sought to alter his date of birth just before retirement. The court ultimately ruled against the employee, emphasizing that such requests should not be entertained at the end of one’s service. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna, with the opinion authored by Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The respondent, Shyam Kishore Singh, was appointed as a trainee in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. on February 27, 1982. His personnel number was 00473470. While he claimed his date of birth was January 20, 1955, based on his matriculation certificate, the service records of the company listed his date of birth as March 4, 1950. This discrepancy remained unaddressed until 2009, just before his retirement on March 31, 2010. In 1998, the respondent had also indicated his date of birth as March 4, 1950, in his Provident Fund Nomination Form. A request made by the respondent in 2009 to change his date of birth was rejected by the company. After retiring, the respondent filed a writ petition in 2014 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, seeking correction of his date of birth in the service records.

Timeline

Date Event
February 27, 1982 Respondent joined Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. as a trainee.
March 4, 1950 Date of birth recorded in service records.
1987 Opportunity given to employees to verify and seek changes in service records.
May 25, 1998 Respondent submitted Provident Fund Nomination Form, stating his date of birth as March 4, 1950.
2009 Respondent made a representation seeking a change in his date of birth.
March 31, 2010 Respondent retired from service.
2014 Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
February 19, 2019 Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand passed an order modifying the judgment of the single judge.
February 5, 2020 Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment.

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand, while considering the matter, noted that the company had verified the respondent’s date of birth from the Bihar School Examination Board in 2009, which confirmed his date of birth as January 20, 1955. The Single Judge concluded that the company’s verification of the date of birth indicated that the date of birth recorded in the service record was incorrect and directed the company to make necessary corrections. The Division Bench modified the order of the Single Judge, noting the delay in approaching the court after retirement. The Division Bench limited the relief to payment of one year’s salary for the period between April 2010 and March 2011. The company appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the issue of altering the date of birth in service records, particularly at the fag end of one’s career. The Supreme Court referred to several of its previous decisions to establish the legal position on this matter.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.):

  • The appellants argued that the respondent’s date of birth was consistently recorded as March 4, 1950, in the service records from the date of his appointment on February 27, 1982.
  • They highlighted that the respondent himself had indicated his date of birth as March 4, 1950, in his Provident Fund Nomination Form submitted on May 25, 1998.
  • The appellants contended that the respondent did not seek any change in his date of birth in 1987, when an opportunity was provided to all employees to verify and seek changes in their service records.
  • The appellants relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. [(2010) 14 SCC 423], State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas [(2011) 9 SCC 664], Factory Manager Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. Laxman [SLP (C) Nos.2592-2593/2018] and M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram Samugh Yadav & Ors. [C.A.No.7724 of 2011], to argue that belated requests for change of date of birth in service records should not be entertained.
See also  Supreme Court settles the applicability of retrospective tax laws and promissory estoppel in excise duty exemptions: Union of India vs. M/s V.V.F Limited (22 April 2020)

Arguments by the Respondent (Shyam Kishore Singh):

  • The respondent relied on his matriculation certificate, which stated his date of birth as January 20, 1955.
  • The respondent argued that the High Court had noticed alterations in Form “B” relating to his date of birth.
  • The respondent referred to the verification done by the appellants from the Bihar School Examination Board in 2009, which confirmed his date of birth as January 20, 1955.
  • The respondent relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. vs. Chhota Birasa Uranw [(2014) 12 SCC 570] to argue that a direction for change in the date of birth can be issued by the court.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Appellants: Date of birth in service records is correct.
  • Date of birth recorded as March 4, 1950, from the date of appointment.
  • Respondent himself indicated March 4, 1950, as his date of birth in the Provident Fund Nomination Form.
  • No change sought in 1987 when an opportunity was provided.
  • Belated requests for change of date of birth should not be entertained.
Respondent: Date of birth in matriculation certificate is correct.
  • Matriculation certificate states date of birth as January 20, 1955.
  • Alterations in Form “B” relating to date of birth.
  • Verification by Bihar School Examination Board confirmed date of birth as January 20, 1955.
  • Direction for change in date of birth can be issued.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

  • Whether the High Court was justified in directing the change of date of birth in the service records at the fag end of the respondent’s service.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasons
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the change of date of birth in the service records at the fag end of the respondent’s service? No The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in directing the change of date of birth at the fag end of the respondent’s service. The court noted that the respondent had accepted the date of birth recorded in the service records for nearly three decades and had also indicated the same date in his Provident Fund Nomination Form. The court held that belated requests for change of date of birth should not be entertained.

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Authority Court How it was used
State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. [(2010) 14 SCC 423] Supreme Court of India The court cited this case to emphasize that grievances regarding the date of birth in service records should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.
U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [(2005) 11 SCC 465] Supreme Court of India This case was referred to in Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, which was used to support the view that date of birth corrections should not be allowed at the end of service.
State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [(2005) 11 SCC 477] Supreme Court of India This case was cited to show that relief was denied to a government employee who sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service.
Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran [1994 Supp (1) SCC 155] Supreme Court of India The court quoted this case to highlight that an application for correction of the date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of service and that such a correction has a chain reaction affecting the promotions of other employees.
State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas [(2011) 9 SCC 664] Supreme Court of India The court relied on this case to state 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.
Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162] Supreme Court of India This case was referred to in Premlal Shrivas to support the view that courts should not aid those who sleep over their rights.
Factory Manager Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. Laxman [SLP (C) Nos.2592-2593/2018] Supreme Court of India This case was cited to support the view that a belated claim for change of date of birth should not be entertained.
M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram Samugh Yadav & Ors. [C.A.No.7724 of 2011] Supreme Court of India The court relied on this case to emphasize that if an opportunity was given to an employee to raise any issue regarding the service record, and no issue was raised at that time, a belated dispute should not be entertained.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. vs. Chhota Birasa Uranw [(2014) 12 SCC 570] Supreme Court of India The court distinguished this case, stating that the employee in that case had raised the issue of discrepancy in the service records when an opportunity was provided in 1987.
See also  Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria: Rajasthan State Sports Council vs. Uma Dadhich (2019)

Judgment

Submission by Parties Court’s Treatment
Appellants’ submission: Date of birth in service records is correct. The Court accepted this submission, noting that the respondent’s date of birth was consistently recorded as March 4, 1950, and that he had also indicated the same date in his Provident Fund Nomination Form.
Respondent’s submission: Date of birth in matriculation certificate is correct. The Court rejected this submission, stating that a change in the date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of service, especially when the employee had accepted the recorded date for a long period.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • The Court relied on State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. [(2010) 14 SCC 423] to emphasize that grievances regarding the date of birth in service records should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.
  • The Court referred to U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [(2005) 11 SCC 465], which was discussed in Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, to support its view that date of birth corrections should not be allowed at the end of service.
  • The Court cited State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [(2005) 11 SCC 477] to show that relief was denied to a government employee who sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service.
  • The Court quoted Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran [1994 Supp (1) SCC 155] to highlight that an application for correction of the date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of service and that such a correction has a chain reaction affecting the promotions of other employees.
  • The Court relied on State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas [(2011) 9 SCC 664] to state 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 Court referred to Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162], as discussed in Premlal Shrivas, to support the view that courts should not aid those who sleep over their rights.
  • The Court cited Factory Manager Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. Laxman [SLP (C) Nos.2592-2593/2018] to support the view that a belated claim for change of date of birth should not be entertained.
  • The Court relied on M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram Samugh Yadav & Ors. [C.A.No.7724 of 2011] to emphasize that if an opportunity was given to an employee to raise any issue regarding the service record, and no issue was raised at that time, a belated dispute should not be entertained.
  • The Court distinguished Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. vs. Chhota Birasa Uranw [(2014) 12 SCC 570], stating that the employee in that case had raised the issue of discrepancy in the service records when an opportunity was provided in 1987.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

  • The respondent had accepted the date of birth recorded in the service records for nearly three decades.
  • The respondent himself had indicated the date of birth as March 4, 1950, in his Provident Fund Nomination Form.
  • The respondent did not seek any change in his date of birth in 1987, when an opportunity was provided to all employees to verify and seek changes in their service records.
  • The respondent made the request for a change of date of birth just before his retirement.
  • The Supreme Court has consistently held that requests for change of date of birth at the fag end of service should not be entertained.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Regulation on Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Danish Khan (2019)
Reason Percentage
Acceptance of Recorded Date of Birth for Three Decades 30%
Self-Declaration of Date of Birth in Provident Fund Form 25%
Failure to Seek Change in 1987 20%
Request Made at the Fag End of Service 15%
Consistent View of Supreme Court on Belated Requests 10%
Aspect Percentage
Fact 30%
Law 70%

Logical Reasoning:

Respondent joined service; date of birth recorded as 04.03.1950

↓

Respondent submitted PF form with date of birth as 04.03.1950

↓

Opportunity in 1987 to correct service record, not availed

↓

Request for change made in 2009, near retirement

↓

Supreme Court precedent against belated changes

↓

Request for change of date of birth rejected

The Court considered the respondent’s submission that his matriculation certificate showed a different date of birth but rejected it, stating that the respondent had accepted the recorded date for a long period. The court emphasized that the respondent had not raised any issue regarding his date of birth in 1987 when an opportunity was provided for the same. The court also considered the verification made by the appellants from the Bihar School Examination Board, but stated that such a verification at that stage was not permissible. The court noted that the respondent had retired from service on March 31, 2010, and even thereafter, the writ petition was filed only in the year 2014, after four years from the date of his retirement.

The Supreme Court quoted from Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran: “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.”

The Supreme Court also quoted from State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas: “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.”

The court further observed, “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.”

There was no minority opinion in this judgment.

Key Takeaways

  • Employees cannot seek a change in their date of birth in service records at the fag end of their career.
  • If an employee has accepted a particular date of birth in service records for a long period, they cannot claim a change based on other documents just before retirement.
  • Courts will not entertain requests for changes in date of birth at the fag end of service, as it affects the seniority and promotion of other employees.
  • Employees must raise any discrepancies in their service records promptly and not wait until the end of their career.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court and allowed the appeal with no order as to costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employee cannot seek a change in their date of birth in service records at the fag end of their career, especially if they have accepted the recorded date for a long period. This reinforces the existing position of law that belated requests for change of date of birth should not be entertained. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it is a reaffirmation of the principle.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reiterates that employees cannot seek changes in their date of birth in service records at the end of their careers, especially if they have accepted the recorded date for a long time. The court emphasized the need for employees to raise any discrepancies in their service records promptly and not wait until the end of their service.

Source: Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Shyam Kishore Singh