1. Service book date of birth entry challenged after superannuation notice — dispute over correct date. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 1075
B.N.KIRPAL, N.S.HEGDE
State Of Uttaranchal – Appellant
Versus
Pitamber Dutt Semwal – Respondent
Date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry is deemed correct if rules expressly prohibit corrections. Claims for correction made after a prolonged period, such as thirty years, are considered highly belated and legally unsustainable.
Headnote:(A) Recruitment Service (Determination of the Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 - Rule 2 - Date of birth of government servant - Date recorded in service book at the time of entry to be deemed correct for all purposes including superannuation - Explicit bar on entertaining any application or representation for correction of such date under any circumstances. (Para 5)
(B) Service Law - Correction of date of birth - Plea for correction raised after nearly thirty years of the service book being prepared - Claim is highly belated and cannot be entertained. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A government employee joined service in 1964 with a specific date of birth recorded in the service book. After receiving a notice of superannuation, the employee represented that the date of birth was wrongly mentioned and cited a school certificate. The request for correction was rejected by the authorities, leading to subsequent legal proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the rules clearly stipulate that no application for correction of the date of birth shall be entertained and the entry in the service book is deemed correct. The court further observed that the plea for correction was raised nearly thirty years after the service book was prepared, during which time the employee had signed the book on multiple occasions.
Issues: Whether the date of birth recorded in the service book can be corrected when the applicable rules expressly prohibit such corrections and the request is made after a significant delay.
Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory rules deem the date of birth in the service book as correct and expressly prohibit corrections, such provisions are binding. Moreover, a request for correction of age made after an extensive period is barred by delay and laches.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Employee sought correction of birth date in service book after thirty years; employer opposed belated claim. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Plea of wrong recording of age taken nearly thirty years after service book preparation was highly belated. (Para 6 )
4. Statutory rules barring correction of service book date of birth prevail; belated challenge cannot be entertained. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court division bench order set aside, restoring original decision rejecting correction. (Para 1 , 7 )
6. Can a government employee seek correction of date of birth in the service book after long delay?
No, a challenge after nearly thirty years is highly belated and cannot be entertained under statutory rules barring such correction. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. What is the effect of the U.P. Recruitment Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 on date-of-birth disputes?
The Rules deem the date of birth in the service book at entry as correct for all service purposes and bar any application for correction in any circumstances. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT
B.N.KIRPAL, J.
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) IN the instant case, the respondent was employed as a class-IV employee by the collector, Uttar Kashi in the year 1964. In the service book which was prepared, the date of birth recorded was 10/04/1936.
(3) ON 30/01/1996, notice was given to him to the effect that he will complete 60 years of age on 30/04/1996 and he would superannuate on that date. It is only thereafter that a representation was made by the respondent to the effect that his date of birth had been wrongly mentioned in the service book and as per the certificate issued by the school, his date of birth was 6/07/1942.
(4) HAVING been unsuccessful before the collector, the respondent filed a writ petition which was dismissed. Later, an appeal filed against the said decision was allowed. Hence, this appeal.
(5) RULE 2 of the U.P. Recruitment Service (Determination of the Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 reads as follows:
"2. Determination of correct date of birth or age: The date of birth of a govt. servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed high school or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the govt. service or where a government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid or has passed any such examination after joining the service, the date of birth of the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth of age as the case may, be for all purposes in relation to his service including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever."
(6) THESE rules, the validity of which have not been challenged, clearly stipulate that no application or representation shall be entertained for correcting any date or age record and the entry made in the service book shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth. Be that as it may, even dehors the said rule, we are of the opinion that the plea of the respondent that the date of birth was wrongly recorded was highly belated. He joined service in 1964, the service book was prepared in 1965 and according to the appellant, he has signed the said service book at least on three occasions. In any case, the plea of the wrong recording of the age in the service book has been taken, nearly thirty years after the service book was prepared. In our opinion, the division bench was in error in ignoring the provisions of the said rule 2 and even otherwise, in the facts of this case, there was no occasion for the High Court to have interfered with the decision of the appellant.
(7) WE, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the division bench of the High Court.
