Supreme Court sets aside High Court order regarding correction of date of birth in service records: State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi (2006)

Date of the Judgment: 19th July 2006

Citation: [Not provided in the document]

Judges: Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.

Can a government employee change their date of birth in their service record late in their career? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in an appeal from the Gujarat High Court. The case involved an employee who sought to change his birth year in the service record just before retirement. Justices Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta considered the legality of the High Court’s decision, which had favored the employee.

Case Background:

Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi was appointed as an unarmed Police Constable on October 3, 1947. At the time of his appointment, his year of birth was recorded as 1923. Based on this, he was scheduled to retire on November 1, 1981, upon reaching the age of 58. An order dated February 16, 1981, was issued to this effect.

After receiving the retirement order, Sindhi applied to change his date of birth in the service record, claiming he was born in 1928, not 1923. This request was not accepted, leading him to file a writ petition. Although he sought an interim stay of the retirement order, no such direction was given, and he retired on November 1, 1981.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings:

The writ petition filed by Sindhi was allowed by a Single Judge on April 30, 1993. The judge held that Sindhi should have been allowed to continue in service until November 1, 1986, based on his school leaving certificate. The court directed the authorities to pay arrears for the period between November 1, 1981, and November 1, 1986.

The Single Judge accepted the school leaving certificate produced by Sindhi, noting that its correctness was not challenged since no counter-affidavit was filed. The State of Gujarat then appealed this decision.

The Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the State of Gujarat was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court regarding the date of birth. However, the High Court directed that the arrears not be paid, while other salary benefits were to be provided. This led the State of Gujarat to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework:

The Supreme Court noted that several rules govern requests to change the date of birth. One such rule is Rule 171 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959. This rule stipulates that requests for alteration of the date of birth should not be entertained after the preparation of the service book or after the completion of the probation period, or after 5 years of continuous service, whichever is earlier.

Rule 171 further specifies that once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in the service book, no alteration should be allowed unless it is shown that the entry was due to a lack of care on the part of someone other than the individual or is an obvious clerical error.

The court also cited several cases:

• State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka (1970 (3) SCC 624): The court stated that the date of compulsory retirement must be determined based on the service record unless the service record is first corrected following the appropriate procedure.
• Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagreev Sarma (1990 (2) SCC 682): The court considered the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984, observing that the object of the rules is to avoid repeated applications for correction of date of birth.
• Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and Ors. v Rangadhar Mallik (1993 Supp.(1) SCC 763): The court examined Rule 65 of the Orissa General Finance Rules, which provides that representations for correction of date of birth near the time of superannuation shall not be entertained.
• Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993 (2) SCC 162): The court reiterated that a government servant is not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age if he possesses irrefutable proof, but must do so without unreasonable delay.
• The Secretary and Commissioner Home Department and Ors. v. R. Kirubakaran (JT 1993 (5) SC 404): The court observed that any direction for correction of date of birth has a chain reaction, affecting the promotions of others waiting below him.
• State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan (1994 (6) SCC 302) and State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ramanath Patnaik (1997 (5) SCC 181): The court held that if an employee did not attempt to have the service record corrected while in service, any amount of evidence produced subsequently is of no consequence.
• State of U.P. and Others v. Gulaichi (Smt.) (2003 (6) SCC 483): The court reiterated the above position.

Arguments:

The counsel for the appellant, the State of Gujarat, argued that the respondent, Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi, provided no valid reason for requesting a change of his date of birth after receiving the retirement order. He had remained silent for nearly 35 years since joining the service in 1947. The entry in the service record was based on his own statement, and no substantial evidence was presented to show any error in the recorded date.

The appellant contended that the High Court should not have granted relief based merely on the production of a school leaving certificate, the authenticity of which was doubtful. The appellant highlighted that the school leaving certificate did not indicate the date of birth but only the year, a suspicious circumstance overlooked by the High Court.

There was no response on behalf of the respondent.

Arguments:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The source document does not explicitly list the issues framed by the Supreme Court. However, the primary issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the change of date of birth in the service record of the respondent based on the presented evidence and circumstances.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities:

The court considered several cases and legal provisions:

1. Rule 171 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959: This rule governs the alteration of date of birth in service records, stipulating conditions and timelines for such requests.
2. State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka (1970 (3) SCC 624): The court held that the date of compulsory retirement must be based on the service record unless corrected through the appropriate procedure.
3. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagreev Sarma (1990 (2) SCC 682): The court considered the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984, emphasizing the need to avoid repeated applications for date of birth correction.
4. Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and Ors. v Rangadhar Mallik (1993 Supp.(1) SCC 763): The court examined Rule 65 of the Orissa General Finance Rules, which disallows entertaining requests for date of birth correction near superannuation.
5. Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993 (2) SCC 162): The court reiterated that corrections to the date of birth must be requested without unreasonable delay and with irrefutable proof.
6. The Secretary and Commissioner Home Department and Ors. v. R. Kirubakaran (JT 1993 (5) SC 404): The court noted the chain reaction caused by date of birth corrections, affecting the seniority and promotions of other employees.
7. State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan (1994 (6) SCC 302) and State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ramanath Patnaik (1997 (5) SCC 181): The court held that if no attempt was made to correct the service record while in service, subsequent evidence is inconsequential.
8. State of U.P. and Others v. Gulaichi (Smt.) (2003 (6) SCC 483): The court reiterated the above position.

Authorities:

Judgment:

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Judgment:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rule 171 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959: The Court relied on this rule to emphasize the conditions and timelines for altering the date of birth in service records.
• State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka (1970 (3) SCC 624): The Court cited this case to reinforce that the date of compulsory retirement must be based on the service record unless corrected through the appropriate procedure.
• Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagreev Sarma (1990 (2) SCC 682): This case was cited to highlight the objective of avoiding repeated applications for correction of date of birth.
• Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and Ors. v Rangadhar Mallik (1993 Supp.(1) SCC 763): The Court referenced this case to support the principle that representations for correction of date of birth near superannuation should not be entertained.
• Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993 (2) SCC 162): This case was reiterated to emphasize that corrections to the date of birth must be requested without unreasonable delay and with irrefutable proof.
• The Secretary and Commissioner Home Department and Ors. v. R. Kirubakaran (JT 1993 (5) SC 404): The Court noted this case to highlight the chain reaction caused by date of birth corrections, affecting the seniority and promotions of other employees.
• State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan (1994 (6) SCC 302) and State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ramanath Patnaik (1997 (5) SCC 181): These cases were cited to emphasize that if no attempt was made to correct the service record while in service, subsequent evidence is inconsequential.
• State of U.P. and Others v. Gulaichi (Smt.) (2003 (6) SCC 483): The Court reiterated this position.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?:

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the delay in requesting the change of date of birth, the lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the doubtful authenticity of the school leaving certificate. The Court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the established rules and procedures for altering service records to avoid adverse effects on other employees’ seniority and promotion prospects.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations. The factual aspects included the delay in requesting the change and the authenticity of the school leaving certificate. The legal considerations involved the interpretation and application of service rules and precedents.

Logical Reasoning:

The source document does not explicitly provide the logical reasoning of the court. However, based on the information provided, the following flowchart represents the logical reasoning of the court:

Employee requests change of date of birth → Delay in request & Doubtful document → Violation of service rules → High Court’s decision unsustainable → Supreme Court sets aside High Court order.

Key Takeaways:

• Government employees must request corrections to their date of birth in service records without unreasonable delay.
• Requests made close to retirement are unlikely to be entertained.
• Any evidence provided to support such requests must be irrefutable and authentic.
• Service rules governing the alteration of date of birth must be strictly followed to avoid adverse effects on other employees.

Development of Law:

The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to service rules regarding the alteration of date of birth in service records. It clarifies that delays in requesting such changes and the presentation of doubtful evidence will not be favorably considered by the courts. The ratio decidendi of the case is that requests for correction of date of birth must be made within a reasonable time and supported by irrefutable evidence, in accordance with the applicable service rules.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. The Court held that the High Court’s decision to allow the change of date of birth in the service record of the respondent was not sustainable due to the delay in requesting the change, the doubtful authenticity of the school leaving certificate, and the specific provisions of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to service rules and precedents in such matters.