2011 Supreme(SC) 920

2011 (6) Supreme 259
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and Ashok Kumar Ganguly, JJ
State of M.P & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Premlal Shrivas — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2331 OF 2004
Decided on : 19-9-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into government service is conclusive and binding on the government servant.
2. In matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag-end of his career, the Court or the Tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. If a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights.
3. For an employee seeking the correction of his date of birth, it is a condition precedent that he must show, that the incorrect recording of the date of birth was made due to negligence of some other person, or that the same was an obvious clerical error failing which the relief should not be granted to him.

Headnote:(a) Service Law ¯ Correction of date of birth ¯ Respondent appointed as constable in the year 1965, made representation in the year 1990 for correction of his father’s name and date of birth, alleging that his date of birth is 30.6.1945 and not 1.6.1942 entered in his service record ¯ By order dated 8th March 1995 his representation was rejected ¯ Being dissatisfied he filed application before M.P. Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal ¯ Thereafter he filed a writ petition before the High Court which set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed the writ petition ¯ The appellants State of M.P. and its functionaries filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court ¯ The Supreme Court held that the original date of birth viz. 1st June 1942 in the service record was correct ¯ The date of birth of an official recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding on the Government servant ¯ Appeal allowed.

        (b) M.P. Fianancial Code, Rule 84 ¯ Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code clearly shows that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding on the government servant. (Para 14).

       Facts of the Case :

        The respondent was appointed to the post of a Police Constable in the year 1965. In the service book, prepared at the time of his entering the service, his date of birth was recorded as 1st June, 1942. His father’s name was recorded as Gayadin. This position continued till 1990, when he made a representation to the appellants seeking correction of his father’s name and date of birth in the service record. The plea of the respondent was that at the time of joining the service, his date of birth as also the name of his father was wrongly recorded on the basis of the information furnished by his maternal grandfather, who was accompanying him at that point of time as he was living with him after the death of his father. According to the respondent, he came to know about the mistake when he was promoted as Head Constable. In support of his application, the respondent submitted his class IV marksheet, transfer certificate of class VIII and a certificate from a local MLA. By order dated 8th March 1995, the representation came to be rejected, inter-alia, on the ground that the service record of the respondent was prepared on the instructions of his maternal grandfather, accompanying the respondent at the time of enrolment, the same carries his finger and thumb impressions and was duly attested by the then Superintendent of Police on 7th September, 1976. Moreover, at the time of enrolment, the respondent had been subjected to a medical examination on 27th September 1965, when the Examining Medical Authority had certified his age to be 23 years. Being dissatisfied, the respondent preferred an application before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal. Referring to several documents brought on record by the appellants, which included some documents which had been filled up by the respondent himself and showing the date of his birth as 1st June, 1942 and father’s name as Gayadin, the Tribunal dismissed the application vide order dated 18th April, 2001. Having failed before the Tribunal, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court which set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the State of Madhya Pradesh and two of its functionaries have preferred this appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court.

       Findings :

        1. The respondent had applied for correction of his date of birth in 1990, i.e., 25 years after his induction into service as a constable. It is evident from the record that the respondent was aware ever since 1965 that his date of birth as recorded in the service book is 1st June, 1942 and not 30th June, 1945. At the time of respondent’s medical examination, his age as on 27th September, 1965 was mentioned to be 23 years and his father’s name was recorded as Gayadin; and in his descriptive roll, prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police as well, his father’s name was shown as Gayadin and his date of birth as 1st June, 1942 and this document was signed by the respondent and the form of agreement known as “Mamuli Sipahi Ka Ikrarnama” was filled up by the respondent himself with the very same particulars. (Para 12)

        2. Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code clearly shows that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding on the government servant. (Para 14)

        3. In the instant case, no evidence has been placed on record by the respondent to show that the date of birth recorded as 1st June, 1942 was due to the negligence of some other person. He had failed to show that the date of birth was recorded incorrectly, due to want of care on the part of some other person, despite the fact that a correct date of birth had been shown on the documents presented or signed by him. (Para 16).