Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited - Appellant
Versus
T.P. Nataraja & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5720 of 2021
With
Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
M.C. Subramaniam Reddy - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5721 of 2021
Decided On : 21-09-2021
Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 - Sections 4, 5(2) - Employment - Change of date of birth - Bar of alteration of age except under the Act - Age or date of birth of State servants - Alteration of - Dispute is with respect to change of date of birth in the service record - Section 5 of Act, 1974 provides alteration of age or date of birth of State servants which provides that subject to Sub-section (2), the State Government may, at any time, after an inquiry, alter age and date of birth of a State servant as recorded or deemed to have been recorded in his service register or book or any other record of service. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 further provides that no such alteration to the advantage of a State servant shall be made, unless he has made an application for purpose within three years from date on which his age and date of birth is accepted and recorded in service register or book or any other record of service or within one year from date of commencement of Act, 1974, whichever is later. Section 6 of Act, 1974 provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is required to be decided under Act, 1974 - Application of respondent for change of date of birth was liable to be rejected on ground of delay and laches also and as such respondent employee was not entitled to decree of declaration and therefore impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is unsustainable and not tenable at law - Direction issued. (Paras 7, 11 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Appeal preferred by respondent No.1 - employee and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court consequently dismissing the suit filed by respondent No.1 herein - original plaintiff declaring date of birth of employee, original defendant - Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (original defendant - appellant -corporation) has preferred present appeal.
Finding of the court:
After the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in W.P. directing the appellant - corporation to consider the case of the original writ petitioner - respondent herein in light of the decision in the case of RFA, the case of the respondent came to be reconsidered and his prayer for change of date of birth came to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches and even thereafter also the fresh decision was challenged before learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has also dismissed the subsequent writ petition. Therefore, no further order is required to be passed in the present appeal and is accordingly disposed of. However, question of law is decided in favour of appellant - corporation as observed hereinabove.
Result: Appeal disposed of
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal (RFA) No.1674 of 2013, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondent No.1 herein - employee and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court consequently dismissing the suit filed by respondent No.1 herein - original plaintiff declaring the date of birth of employee 24.01.1961, the original defendant - Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (hereinafter referred to as the original defendant - appellant - corporation) has preferred the present appeal.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad in Writ Petition No.109447 of 2019 (S-RES), by which the High Court has partly allowed the said writ petition, relying upon the judgment and order passed in RFA No.1674 of 2013 (which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No.5720 of 2021 arising out of SLP No.2368 of 2020) and has directed the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited to reconsider the decision of original writ petitioner with respect to change of date of birth, the original respondent - Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited has preferred Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2021 arising out of SLP No.1062 of 2021.
Civil Appeal No.5720 of 2021
3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
3.1 That respondent No.1 herein - original plaintiff was appointed with the appellant corporation in the year 1984. In the service record his date of birth was reflected as 04.01.1960 as per SSLC Marks Card. After the lapse of nearly 24 years, respondent no.1 herein - original plaintiff requested for change of date of birth from 04.01.1960 to 24.01.1961. That thereafter respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration before Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengalore to declare that his date of birth is 24.01.1961. The suit was opposed by the appellant - corporation relying upon the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1974) and resolution dated 17.05.1991 passed by the appellant - corporation adopting the Karnataka Civil Service Rules and allied laws. The said rule provided that the request for change of date of birth in the service record shall be made within a period of three years from the date of joining or within one year from commencement of the Karnataka Act No.22 of 1974. The suit was also opposed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of respondent No.1 - original plaintiff in requesting to change the date of birth. Relying upon Section 5(2) of the Act, 1974 the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2013.
3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit, respondent No.1 - original plaintiff preferred Regular First Appeal No.1674 of 2013 before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.03.2019 has allowed the said appeal by observing that it was highly impossible that the plaintiff should have availed the remedy within three years from the date of joining of service and also observing that the resolution dated 17.05.1991 passed by the appellant - corporation adopting the Karnataka Civil Service Rules and allied laws was not brought to notice of the plaintiff.
3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 11.03.2019 allowing the said appeal and quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit preferred by respondent No.1 herein and consequently decreeing the suit and declaring the date of birth of respondent No.1 - original plaintiff 24.01.1961 instead of 04.01.1960
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for irrefutable proof and timely requests for correction of date of birth in service records, as well as the limitations on seeking....
The court ruled that claims for correction of date of birth in service records, particularly at the fag-end of service, are not a matter of right and can be rejected due to delay and lack of proper e....
Applications for correction of date of birth in service records must be timely; delay can invalidate claims, even with evidence.
Court has consistently held that request for change of date of birth in service records at fag end of service is not sustainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
