2008 Supreme(SC) 1577

2008(7) Supreme 625
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Mohd. Yunus Khan — Appellant
versus
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No. 5232 of 2006)
Decided on : 22-10-08

IMPORTANT POINT
An employee may take action as is permissible in law only after coming to know that a mistake has been committed by the employer.

Headnote:Service Law – Wrong recording of date of birth in the service book of appellant by authorities of respondents – Appointment of Appellant appointed on or about 1st July, 1968 as Patrolman by respondent.5 – His date of birth in the service book was recorded as 27.2.1934 – However, in school leaving certificate of appellant, his date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1948 – Writ petition there against – Allowed by High Court holding that due to inadvertence of authorities of respondents medical certificate of another employee wherein the date of his birth mentioned as 27.2.1934 was wrongly placed in the record of petitioner instead of school leaving certificate wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 1.7.1948- Intra court appeal – Allowed – Review petition – Dismissed – High Court, although, might be correct in holding that representation for correction of date of birth should be made as expeditiously as possible so as to enable employer to pass an appropriate order thereupon, but said principle, had no application in a case of this nature, where a mistake on the part of authorities stood admitted – No material placed in regard to existence of a statutory rule fixing a time frame for filing an application for correction of date of birth in the service record – Even if there was such a provision, same, was not of much significance as respondents had not shown that mistake in matter of recording of date of birth in service record was known to appellant at any earlier point of time – If appellant’s came to learn about it only in April, 1988 whereafter he filed a representation, there was no delay on his part in this behalf – Particularly when respondent No.5, Executive Engineer, indeed found that such a mistake had been committed and recommended for correction thereof, the Board, which is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, was obligated to rectify the same – Such a mistake being totally in the hands of the authorities of the Board, stricto sensu even the principle of natural justice was not required to be complied with so far as appellant was concerned- Principle of justice was required to be complied with only in respect of other employee for affording him an opportunity of hearing – High Court, committed a serious error in not considering this aspect of the matter- Impugned judgments being unsustainable held liable to be set aside – Appeals allowed. (Paras 10 to 19)

       Facts of the Case :

        Issue in consideration in present case was regarding consequence of a wrong recording of a date of birth in the service book of appellant by the authorities of the respondents.

       Findings of the Court :

        High Court, although, might be correct in holding that representation for correction of date of birth should be made as expeditiously as possible so as to enable employer to pass an appropriate order thereupon, but said principle, had no application in a case of this nature, where a mistake on the part of authorities stood admitted. No material was placed in regard to existence of a statutory rule fixing a time frame for filing an application for correction of date of birth in the service record. Even if there was such a provision, same, was not of much significance as respondents had not shown that mistake in matter of recording of date of birth in service record was known to appellant at any earlier point of time. If appellant’s came to learn about it only in April, 1988 whereafter he filed a representation, there was no delay on his part in this behalf. Appellant was to retire, even treating his date of birth as 27th February, 1934, in 1992. In that view of the matter a representation filed by him in the year 1988 should have received due and expeditious consideration at the hands of the authorities of the Board. Had such a step been taken, the principles of natural justice of giving an opportunity of hearing to the other employee could also have been complied with. Even the records of both the employees could have been verified with reference to other documents as also the names of the parents of the parties, if necessary, in presence of each other. No such step admittedly had been taken by the Board. Particularly when respondent No.5, Executive Engineer, indeed found that such a mistake had been committed and recommended for correction thereof, the Board, which is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, was obligated to rectify the same. Such a mistake being totally in the hands of the authorities of the Board, stricto sensu even the principle of natural justice was not required to be complied with so far as appellant was concerned. Principle of justice was required to be complied with only in respect of other employee for affording him an opportunity of hearing. High Court, committed a serious error in not considering this aspect of the matter. Impugned judgments being unsustainable held liable to be set aside. Appeals allowed.