1. Employees seeking correction of birth dates for superannuation purposes after long service, challenging the refusal to refer them to a medical board for age determination. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 245
1996(1) Suprem 90
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Vishakhapatnanu Dock Labour Board -Appellant
versus
E. Atchanna & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 25992601 of 1996
Decided on 1-2-1996
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
High Court ought not to have issued impugned directions for consitution of Medical Board to test age given at an interlocutory stage as they would cause serious prejudice to the employer/appellant s case.
High Court ought not to have issued impugned directions for consitution of Medical Board to test age given at an interlocutory stage as they would cause serious prejudice to the employer/appellant s case.
Subject
Employment - Retirement Age
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal by special leave against interim directions-Service matter-Dock labourers-When recrnited date of birth ascertained from their appearance-Suparannuation accordingly-Labourers wanted correction in date of birth on the basis of certificates issued by Panchayat Aughorities or medical test-not accepted-Writ petition-Single Judge dismissed-Appeal to DB-Interim order issued for constitution of Medical Board for determination of age-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether impugned directions given at an interlocutory stage would prejudice appellant s case and so he set aside ? (Yes) (Para 7)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Employer challenges the propriety of an interlocutory order for medical age determination; employees argue such orders were previously granted in similar matters. (Para 5 )
3. Employees failed to seek birth date correction within the prescribed five-year limit from the government notification and provided insufficient proof to justify a medical board referral. (Para 7 )
4. Applications for correction of birth date must be made within the prescribed time-limit; stale claims are barred by laches regardless of evidence. (Para 6 )
5. Appeals allowed and the interlocutory order directing medical age determination set aside. (Para 7 )
6. Can a government servant claim correction of their date of birth after the prescribed time-limit has expired?
No. If the government fixes a time-limit in service rules, an application made beyond that period cannot be claimed as a matter of right, even if the employee possesses evidence that the recorded date is erroneous. (Para 6 )
7. How does the principle of laches apply to requests for correcting service records regarding date of birth?
In the absence of specific rules, courts generally refuse relief on grounds of laches or stale claims if the employee has waited an unreasonable amount of time to seek correction. (Para 6 )
8. Is it proper to order a medical board for age determination at an interlocutory stage when the request for correction is time-barred?
No, such directions at an interlocutory stage are improper if they cause serious prejudice to the employer's case, especially when the request for alteration was not made within the prescribed reasonable time. (Para 7 )
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of a common order bassed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1024, 1025 and 1026 of 1995.
3. Between 1961 and 1969 the respondents entered service of the appellant as Mazdoors. At the time of their appointments, the respondents had not produced any proof regarding their dates of birth. Therefore, their age as could be ascertained from their appearance, was recorded in their service books. As the respondents were to attain the age of superannuation between April and July 1995. Intimations were given to them invoidulally regarding the dates of their retirement. They made represantations to the appellant to rectify their dates of birth on the basis of certificates issued by Panchayat authorities. Subseduently, they also requested the appellant to send them to the Medical Board for ascertainment of their age. As the appellant did not accede to their requests they filed writ petitions in the High Court. They prayed for a declaration that they attain the age of superannuation calculated on the basis of their correct birth cates. In the alternative, they also drayed that the appellant be directed to refer them to the Medical Board for ascartairment of their real age and continue them in service in accordance with the determination to be made by the Board. The petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge of that Court. He not only doubted the varacity of the certificates produced by the respondents but also held that as the request for correction of birth dates was not made within 5 years from the notification dated 30.11.1979 issued by the Government of India. The appellant was justified in not entertaining their reducests. The learned Judge also held that for that reason, prayer for referring them to the Medical Board also could not be granted. He, therefore, dismissed the petitions by his common order dated 27.4.1995.
4. On 17.7.1995 the respondents preferred writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. On 10.10.1995 it bassed an interim order as it was of the opinion that before making any substantive order it should have an independent assessment of the age of the appellants before it. By that order it gave the following directions :
"(1) The Director, Health Services, State of A.P. is directed to fix a date and accordingly inform the appellants herein for appearance before him or a Board constituted by him for determination of their age by such scientific tests as are available.
(2) Appellants accordingly are directed to obtain from the office of the Director. Health Services information about the date fixed for their appearance and appear when directed to do so by the Director, Health Services.
(3) The Director, Health Services is directed to submit a report to this court about the age of the appellants herein.
All the above must be complied within one month. Post after one month."
5. The appellant questions the properiety of passing such an order at an interldcutory stage. It was submitted that if this order is not set aside it will cause serious prejudice to the case of the appellants. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order on the ground that earlier also the High Court had in similar matters passed such orders.
6. This Court in Union of India v. Harnam Singh1 had an occasion to deal with a case where an application by an employee for correction of date of birth was made only after being notified about his date of superannuation and not within the period of 5 years from the date of coming into force of the Governement of India a Notification dated November 30, 1979. In that case entry into the Government service was in 1956 and the application for correction of date of birth was made in 1991. This Court observed that inction of the employee for a period of about 33 years from the date of joining service precluded him from showing that entry of his date o
