Point of Law : Date of birth correction - Even if the dismissal of an employee from service is illegal, he is not entitled to whole of the back-wages as a matter of right, and the Court needs to award a suitable compensation after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case before it.

JUDGMENT :

V. KAMESWAR, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 with the following prayers :

“i. Set aside the impugned Judgment and Decree dated February 27, 2021, passed by Learned ADJ-02 & WAQF Tribunal in CS NO. 391/2017 titled as “Ram Sharan v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors.;

ii. Summon the trial court records;

iii. Any other/further order(s) instruction(s) and direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fir and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in favor of the Appellant and against the Respondent No.1.”

2. The brief factual background of the case in the present appeal is that respondent No.1/plaintiff joined the service with the appellant/defendant No.1 on October 20, 1989, as Junior Engineer. According to respondent No.1/plaintiff his date of birth i.e., October 02, 1962, has been recorded in all the documents of his office including the Application Form, Educational Certificates, Attestation form i.e., Form of Personal details, Service Book, Pay Fixation Certificate, Medical Card, etc. The appellant/defendant No.1 in the years 2003 and 2010 published the seniority list for some of its employees/office bearers and invited objections concerning the same if any. In respect of respondent No.1/plaintiff, as stated by the appellant/defendant No.1, the date of birth reflected in the said seniority list was October 02, 1960. In addition, according to the appellant/defendant No.1, respondent No.1/plaintiff in the year 2012 inspected its Service Book and did not object to any of its details. It is a case where respondent No.1/plaintiff for the first time on July 31, 2013, submitted a letter to the appellant/defendant No.1 alleging erroneous entry of the date of birth of respondent No.1/plaintiff in the Service Book as October 02, 1960, instead of October 02, 1962. Thereafter, the appellant/defendant No.1 after conducting the necessary procedure responded to respondent No.1/plaintiff stating the appointing authority’s inability to correct the alleged error of the date of birth. Moreover, respondent No.1/plaintiff on April 27, 2015, requested a copy of its Service Book under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Subsequently, on May 29, 2015, the appellant/defendant No.1 supplied a copy of the Service Book and personal document available with the appellant/defendant No.1.

3. It is a case wherein the respondent No.1/plaintiff before the Trial Court in the CS No. 391/2017 prayed for a decree of declaration for declaring his correct date of birth in service record as October 02, 1962, and further prayed to pass a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants and their officers, employees, successors, and representatives, etc., to rectify and correct date of birth in the service record as October 02, 1962. The respondent No.1/plaintiff before the Trial Court had also prayed for a decree of damages against defendants by directing the appellant/defendant No.1 to pay Rs.3 Lacs as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him due to gross negligence and casual approach in dealing with such a sensitive issue by the defendants (including appellant) along with costs of the suit.

4. Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendant No.1 has filed written submissions and argued that respondent No.1/plaintiff failed to prove his pleaded case of tampering of the Service Book (which was the sole premise for filing the Civil Suit). Subsequently, respondent No.1/plaintiff pleaded that :

a. Due to tampering of the records (sometime in 2012/2013 when the process of scanning of records of the appellant/defendant No.1 was ongoing), his date of birth was altered from October 02, 1962, to October 02, 1960, in the Service Book, by certain disgruntled officers, etc.

b. Respondent No.1/plaintiff learned about the tampering in 2