Supreme Court Rejects Late Date of Birth Change in Service Records: State of Maharashtra vs. Gorakhnath Kamble (2010)

Date of the Judgment: 16th November, 2010
Citation: 2010 INSC 747
Judges: Dalveer Bhandari, J., Deepak Verma, J.
Can a government employee change their date of birth in service records close to retirement? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where an employee sought to correct his date of birth after 28 years of service. The Court, in this judgment, emphasized that changes to date of birth entries in service records should not be permitted at the fag end of an employee’s career. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Deepak Verma.

Case Background

The case involves Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, the first respondent, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on February 13, 1978. His Secondary School Leaving Certificate indicated his date of birth as June 2, 1949, which was also recorded in his service record. On May 23, 2004, Kamble applied to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli, stating that his actual date of birth, according to the Tahsildar’s records, was May 3, 1951. He requested a correction in his service record to reflect this date.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Block Education Officer rejected Kamble’s initial application, citing that it was time-barred under Rule 38(2)(f) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 1981, which requires such applications to be made within five years of joining service. This decision was also upheld by the Head Master of the Zilla Parishad primary school. Subsequently, Kamble filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which was allowed on January 19, 2007. The High Court interpreted Rule 38(2)(f) of the Maharashtra Rules, 1981, to mean that changes should not “normally” be made after five years, a word not originally in the rule, and allowed the change at the fag end of his career.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Rule 38(2)(f) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 1981, which states:

“38(2)(f): When once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in a service book no alteration of the entry should afterwards be allowed, unless it is known, that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual in question or is an obvious clerical error.”

Additionally, the Court considered a notification issued by the Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra, dated December 24, 2008, which amended the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981. This notification specified that applications for altering the date of birth for government servants who joined on or after August 16, 1981, would not be entertained after five years from their entry into government service. The notification also stated that the correct date of birth could be determined if the government servant produced an attested copy of the original birth register.

The Court also referred to Instruction (1) of the Maharashtra Rules, 1981 which stated:

“(1)Normally, no application for alteration of the entry regarding date of birth as recorded in the service book or service roll of a Government servant should be entertained after a period of five years commencing from the date of his entry in Government service……..”

Arguments

The State of Maharashtra argued that the High Court had erred in allowing the change of date of birth at the fag end of the respondent’s career. They contended that the High Court had misinterpreted Rule 38(2)(f) of the Maharashtra Rules, 1981, by adding the word “normally” which was not present in the rule. The State relied on several judgments of the Supreme Court, which consistently held that changes in the date of birth should not be permitted at the end of an employee’s service.

The respondent, Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, argued that his actual date of birth was May 3, 1951, as per the Tahsildar’s records, and that the date in his service record was incorrect. He contended that the High Court was correct in allowing the change.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in allowing the change of date of birth at the fag end of the respondent’s career, considering Rule 38(2)(f) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 1981, and the consistent legal position against such changes.

The sub-issue was whether the High Court was correct in interpreting the rule to mean that changes should not “normally” be made after five years.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several of its previous judgments to support its decision. These authorities are categorized below:

Cases Cited by the Court:

• Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162, Supreme Court of India: This case held that an employee’s request for a change in date of birth after a long period of service should not be entertained, especially when the employee had ample opportunity to correct the record earlier.
• State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V.Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302, Supreme Court of India: The court held that a government servant should not be permitted to correct their date of birth at the fag end of their career. The court also noted a growing tendency to fabricate records to gain time in service.
• Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others Vs. R.Kirubakaran, (1994) Suppl.(1) SCC 155, Supreme Court of India: The court reiterated that courts must be cautious when applications for alteration of date of birth are filed near the time of superannuation.
• U.P.Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465, Supreme Court of India: The court 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.
• State of Uttaranchal & Ors. Vs. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477, Supreme Court of India: The court denied relief to a government employee who sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service.
• Government of A.P.& Anr. Vs. M.Hayagreev Sarma, (1990) 2 SCC 682, Supreme Court of India: The court held that subsequent claims for alteration of date of birth after commencement of the rules were not open, even if based on extracts from birth and death registers.
• State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Gulaichi (Smt.), (2003) 6 SCC 483, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited in support of the principle that changes in date of birth should not be permitted at the end of service.
• Executive Engineer, Bhadrak ( R & B) Division, Orissa & Ors. Vs. Rangadhar Mallik, (1993) Suppl.1 SCC 763, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited in support of the principle that changes in date of birth should not be permitted at the end of service.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Rule 38(2)(f) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 1981: This rule specifies that once a date of birth is recorded in a service book, it should not be altered unless there was a lack of care by someone other than the employee or an obvious clerical error.
• Notification dated 24th December, 2008 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra: This notification amended the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981, specifying that applications for altering the date of birth for government servants who joined on or after August 16, 1981, would not be entertained after five years from their entry into government service.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162* to emphasize that changes to date of birth should not be allowed after a long period of service.
• The Court followed State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V.Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302* to reiterate that changes to date of birth should not be allowed at the fag end of service.
• The Court cited Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others Vs. R.Kirubakaran, (1994) Suppl.(1) SCC 155* to emphasize the need for caution when considering such applications near superannuation.
• The Court relied on U.P.Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465* to reiterate 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.
• The Court followed State of Uttaranchal & Ors. Vs. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477* to support the denial of relief for changes sought after a long period of service.
• The Court cited Government of A.P.& Anr. Vs. M.Hayagreev Sarma, (1990) 2 SCC 682* to support that subsequent claims for alteration of date of birth after commencement of the rules were not open.
• The Court cited State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Gulaichi (Smt.), (2003) 6 SCC 483* to support the principle that changes in date of birth should not be permitted at the end of service.
• The Court cited Executive Engineer, Bhadrak ( R & B) Division, Orissa & Ors. Vs. Rangadhar Mallik, (1993) Suppl.1 SCC 763* to support the principle that changes in date of birth should not be permitted at the end of service.
• The Court interpreted Rule 38(2)(f) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 1981 to mean that changes to date of birth should not be allowed unless there was a lack of care by someone other than the employee or an obvious clerical error.
• The Court interpreted the Notification dated 24th December, 2008 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra to mean that applications for altering the date of birth for government servants who joined on or after August 16, 1981, would not be entertained after five years from their entry into government service.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle that changes to date of birth in service records should not be allowed at the fag end of an employee’s career. The Court emphasized that allowing such changes could lead to manipulation of records and cause injustice to other employees awaiting promotions. The Court also highlighted that the High Court had erred in re-writing the rules by adding the word “normally” where it did not exist. The consistent legal position established by previous judgments of the Supreme Court also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a smaller emphasis on the specific facts of the case. The Court’s focus was on upholding the established legal position and preventing potential abuse of the system.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation, emphasizing that the rules do not allow for changes in date of birth at the fag end of service. The Court’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the rules and a consistent application of legal precedents.

The Court stated, “The expression “normally” has not been used in the Rules and interpretation of this expression has led to an erroneous finding in the impugned judgment.”

The Court further noted, “The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has failed to notice the settled legal position which is crystallized by a series of judgments of this Court. All the judgments have consistently taken the view that change in the date of birth cannot be permitted at the fag end of the service career.”

The Court also stated, “In view of the consistent legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and even on a plain reading of the Notification and the instructions set out in the preceding paragraphs leads to the conclusion that no application for alteration of date of birth after five years should have been entertained.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous by the two-judge bench.

This decision has implications for future cases as it reinforces the principle that changes to date of birth in service records should not be allowed at the end of an employee’s career. This can be seen as a measure to prevent manipulation of records and ensure fairness in promotions and retirements.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but rather reinforced existing ones.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Government employees cannot change their date of birth in service records at the fag end of their career.
• ✓ Applications for changes in date of birth must be made within five years of joining service.
• ✓ Courts should be cautious when considering applications for changes in date of birth near the time of superannuation.
• ✓ This decision reinforces the importance of maintaining accurate service records and preventing manipulation.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, thereby rejecting the respondent’s plea for a change in his date of birth in the service record.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that changes to the date of birth in service records should not be permitted at the fag end of an employee’s career. This case reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce any new legal principles. The Supreme Court has consistently held this position in its previous judgments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Maharashtra vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble reinforces the principle that changes to date of birth in service records should not be permitted at the end of an employee’s career. The Court set aside the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of timely applications and the need to prevent manipulation of service records. This judgment serves as a reminder that legal precedents and established rules must be strictly followed to maintain fairness and integrity in government service.

Category:

• Service Law
  • Date of Birth Correction
  • Rule 38(2)(f), Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 1981
• Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 1981
  • Rule 38(2)(f), Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 1981

FAQ

Q: Can a government employee change their date of birth in service records?
A: Generally, changes to the date of birth in service records are not allowed at the fag end of an employee’s career. Such changes are typically only permitted if there was a clear error or lack of care in the initial recording.

Q: What is the time limit for applying for a change in the date of birth in service records?
A: According to the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 1981, applications for changes in date of birth should be made within five years of joining service.

Q: What happens if an employee applies for a change in date of birth close to retirement?
A: Courts and tribunals are generally cautious when considering such applications. They are often rejected to prevent manipulation of records and ensure fairness to other employees.

Q: What was the key legal principle in this case?
A: The key legal principle is that changes to date of birth in service records should not be allowed at the end of an employee’s career to prevent manipulation and maintain the integrity of service records.

Q: What did the Supreme Court say about the High Court’s decision in this case?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, stating that the High Court had misinterpreted the rules by adding the word “normally” which was not present in the original rule. The Supreme Court emphasized that changes to date of birth should not be allowed at the fag end of an employee’s career.