The timeliness of raising a dispute regarding the correctness of the date of birth in the service record and its implications on the employee's superannuation benefits.

ORDER :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the Calcutta High Court in W.P. No.215 of 2006 by which the High Court allowed the said appeal preferred by respondent no.1 herein and directed the appellant to insert the correct date of birth of respondent no.1 in his service book and all other documents including provident fund records i.e. 15.07.1954 instead of 01.07.1945, the appellant – employer has preferred the present appeal.

2. It is required to be noted that respondent no.1 joined service in the year 1973. His date of birth was recorded as in the year 1945 both in the form register which can be said to be statutory document as well as in the pension form.

3. One year prior to his superannuation, respondent no.1 raised the issue of incorrect entry of his date of birth in the service records and he further stated that his date of birth should be 15.07.1954 relying upon his matriculation certificate. The same prayer was not accepted by the employer. Therefore, respondent no.1 approached the High Court but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by him. Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal before the High Court which came to be allowed.

4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and having considered the fact that even in the year 1987, when an opportunity was given by the employer to the employees to raise the query/dispute regarding service record and also in the pension form, respondent no.1 failed to avail such remedy.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 that in the year 1981, the dispute was raised. The said fact is disputed. Be that as it may.

6. Nothing is on record that in the year 1987 when the opportunity was given to respondent no.1, to raise any issue/dispute regarding the service record more particularly his date of birth in the service record, no such issue/dispute was raised. Only one year prior to his superannuation, respondent no.1 raised the dispute which can be said to be belated dispute and therefore, the learned Single Judge as well as the employer was justified in refusing to accept such an issue.

7. The Division Bench of the High Court has, therefore, committed a grave error in directing the appellant to correct the date of birth of respondent no.1 in the service record after number of years and that too when the issue was raised only one year prior to his superannuation and as observed hereinabove no dispute was raised earlier.

8. In view of the facts and further reasoning stated above, we allow the instant appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, and restore that of the learned Single Judge.