KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITEDversusT.P. NATARAJA & ORS.

634                      [2021]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 634              [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A                KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
                      DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
                                       v.
                           T.P. NATARAJA & ORS.
B                        (Civil Appeal No.5720 of 2021)
                            SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
                 [M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
             Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974
      – Change of date of birth – In the service records, the date of birth
C
      of the respondent no.1 was 04.01.1960 – The respondent no.1
      sought to change it to 24.01.1961 – Pursuant thereto, respondent
      no.1 filed suit and it was opposed by the appellant-corporation
      relying on the 1974 Act and resolution dated 17.05.1991 – The
      trial Court dismissed the suit – However, the High Court allowed
D     the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 and observed that it was
      highly impossible that respondent no.1 would have availed the
      remedy within three years from the date of the joining of the service
      or within one year from the date of commencement of Act, 1974 –
      Held: The view of the High Court cannot be accepted – Respondent
      no.1, being the employee of the corporation, was supposed to know
E
      the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the
      corporation – Ignorance of law cannot be an excuse to get out of
      the applicability of the statutory provisions – Respondent No.1-
      employee also was not entitled to any relief or change of date of
      birth on the ground of delay and laches as the request for change
F     of date of birth was made after lapse of 24 years since he joined
      the service.
            Disposing of the appeals, the Court
            HELD: 1. The appellant corporation adopted the provisions
      of the Act, 1974 by resolution dated 17.05.1991. Therefore, as
G     such the request for change of date of birth as per the Act, 1974
      as adopted by the appellant-corporation in the year 1991 was
      required to be made by respondent No.1 – employee within a
      period of one year from 17.05.1991 being the employee of the
      appellant-corporation. However, respondent No.1-employee
H     made the request for change of date of birth vide notice dated
                                    634
           KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE                              635
       DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v. T.P. NATARAJA & ORS.

23.06.2007 i.e. after the lapse of 24 years since he joined the        A
service and nearly after the lapse of 16 years from the date of
adoption of enactment (Act, 1974) by the appellant-corporation.
The High Court in the impugned judgment and order has observed
that nothing is on record that resolution dated 17.05.1991
adopting the Act, 1974 was brought to the notice of the employee
                                                                       B
and that therefore respondent No.1-employee might not be aware
of the applicability of the Act, 1974. Aforesaid cannot be accepted.
Being the employee of the corporation, he was supposed to know
the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the
corporation. Ignorance of law cannot be an excuse to get out of
the applicability of the statutory provisions. [Para 8][642-B-E]       C
      2. Even otherwise and assuming that the reasoning given
by the High Court for the sake of convenience is accepted in that
case also even respondent No.1-employee was not entitled to
any relief or change of date of birth on the ground of delay and
laches as the request for change of date of birth was made after       D
lapse of 24 years since he joined the service. At this stage, few
decisions of this court on the issue of correction of the date of
birth are required to be referred to. [Para 9][642-F-G]
        3. Considering the various decisions of this Court the law
on change of date of birth can be summarized as under: (i)             E
application for change of date of birth can only be as per the
relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii) even if there is
cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches
also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service
and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age       F
of superannuation. [Para 10][647-A-C]
      4. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this court in
various decisions, the application of the respondent for change
of date of birth was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay
and laches also and therefore as such respondent employee was          G
not entitled to the decree of declaration and therefore the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable and not tenable at law. [Para 11][647-C-D]

                                                                       H
636             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A             Home Deptt. v. R.Kirubakaran, (1994) 1 Suppl. SCC
              155 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 376; State of M.P. v. Premlal
              Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 : [2011] 11 SCR 444; Life
              Insurance Corporation of India & Others v. R.
              Basavaraju (2016) 15 SCC 781; Bharat Coking Coal
              Limited and Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC
B
              411 : [2020] 2 SCR 597 – relied on.
                               Case Law Reference
      [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 376                 relied on        Para 4.3
      [2011] 11 SCR 444                       relied on        Para 4.3
C
      [2020] 2 SCR 597                        relied on        Para 4.3
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5720 of
      2021.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 11.03.2019 of the High Court
D     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal No.1674 of 2013.
              With
              Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2021.
           Gurudas S. Kannur, Sr. Adv., Chinmay Deshpande, Anirudh
E     Sanganeria, Advs. for the Appellant.
             Ashok Bannidinni, V. N. Raghupathy, Md. Apzal Ansari, Advs.
      for the Respondents.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F             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
G
      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
H     appeal.
     KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                               637
       LIMITED v. T.P. NATARAJA & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment       A
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
                                                                              B
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                                            C

      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         D
             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          E
             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      F
             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      G
             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.
                                                                              H
638             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A            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
B
                    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
C                   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
D                   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 recorded in the service
                    record, original defendant – employer – corporation has
                    preferred the present appeal.
E
             4. Shri Gurudas S. Kannur, learned Senior Advocate appearing
      on behalf of the appellant – corporation has vehemently submitted in the
      facts and circumstances of the case more particularly when the request
      for change of date of birth was made after 24 years and dehors the
      statutory provisions, the High Court committed a grave error in decreeing
F     the suit and granting the declaratory relief. It is submitted that as mandated
      by Section 5 (2) of the Act, 1974 no such alteration to the date of birth to
      the advantage of a State servant be made unless the employee has made
      an application for the purpose within three years from the date on which
      his age and date of birth is accepted and recorded in the service register
G     or book or any other record of service or within one year from the date
      of commencement of the Act, 1974, whichever is later. It is submitted
      that the Act, 1974 came to be adopted by the appellant – corporation in
      the year 1991 and therefore respondent No.1 – original plaintiff ought to
      have made the request for change of date of birth at least within one
      year from 17.05.1991 i.e. when the resolution was passed by the appellant
H
     KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                               639
       LIMITED v. T.P. NATARAJA & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

– corporation adopting the Act, 1974 and allied laws. It is submitted that    A
in the present case respondent No.1 - employee made the application
for the first time vide notice dated 23.06.2007 i.e. after the lapse of 24
years since he joined the service and nearly after the lapse of 16 years
from the date of adoption of enactment (Act, 1974) by the appellant –
corporation.
                                                                              B
      4.1    It is submitted that the High Court ought to have appreciated
             that the ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. It is submitted
             that being an employee in fact he was supposed to know
             the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the
             corporation.
                                                                              C
      4.2    It is submitted that in any case, the High Court ought to
             have non suited the employee on the ground of delay and
             laches as the request for change of date of birth was made
             after lapse of 16 years from the date of adoption of
             enactment (Act, 1974) by appellant – corporation.
                                                                              D
      4.3    Relying upon the decisions of this court in the cases of Home
             Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155; State of
             M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664; Life Insurance
             Corporation of India & Others v. R. Basavaraju (2016) 15
             SCC 781 and Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. v. Shyam
             Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC 411, it is prayed to allow the        E
             present appeal.
      4.4    Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant –
             corporation had fairly admitted that so far as respondent
             No.1 herein - employee is concerned, the impugned
             judgment and order passed by the High Court has been             F
             implemented. However, as others suits are pending, he has
             requested to decide the question of law so that the impugned
             judgment and order passed by the High Court may not come
             in the way of corporation.
       5. Shri Ashok Bannidinni, learned Advocate appearing on behalf         G
of respondent No.1 – original plaintiff has submitted that so far as
respondent No.1 – original plaintiff is concerned the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court has been implemented in the year
2019 and even thereafter he has attained the age of superannuation
treating and considering his date of birth as 24.01.1961, nothing further
                                                                              H
640            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A     is required to be done in the present appeal and as such the present
      appeal has become infructuous so far as respondent No.1 – original
      plaintiff is concerned.
            5.1    Now so far as Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2021 arising out of
                   SLP No.1062 of 2020 is concerned, it is submitted that even
B                  the said appeal has also become infructuous as after the
                   impugned judgment and order dated 05.11.2019 passed by
                   the High Court in writ petition No.109447 of 2019, by which
                   the High Court has directed the appellant – corporation to
                   re-consider the request of the writ petitioner – respondent
                   herein for change of date of birth in light of the judgment
C                  and order passed in RFA No.1670 of 2013, thereafter the
                   appellant – corporation reconsidered the application/
                   representation of the writ petitioner – respondent herein
                   and his prayer for change of date of birth came to be rejected
                   against which even the writ petition was preferred before
D                  the learned Single Judge and the same has also been
                   dismissed. It is submitted that therefore even Civil Appeal
                   No. 5721 of 2021 arising out of SLP No.1062 of 2020 has
                   become infructuous.
            5.2    Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant
E                  -corporation is not disputing the aforesaid factual matrix.
            6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
      – corporation and respondent No.1 - employee.
             7. The dispute is with respect to change of date of birth in the
      service record. The employees of the State Government for the
F     determination of the age are governed by the Karnataka State Servant
      (Determination of Age) Act, 1974; Section 4 of the Act, 1974 provides
      for bar of alteration of age except under the Act, 1974; Section 5 of the
      Act, 1974 provides alteration of age or date of birth of State servants
      which provides that subject to Sub-section (2), the State Government
G     may, at any time, after an inquiry, alter the 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 the purpose
      within three years from the date on which his age and date of birth is
H
        KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                               641
          LIMITED v. T.P. NATARAJA & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

accepted and recorded in the service register or book or any other record        A
of service or within one year from the date of commencement of Act,
1974, whichever is later. Section 6 of the Act, 1974 further provides that
no court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question
which is required to be decided under the Act, 1974. It also further
provides that no decision under Act, 1974 shall be questioned in any
                                                                                 B
court of law. Section 4, Section 5 and Section 6 which are relevant for
our purpose are re-produced herein below: -
          4. Bar of alteration of age except under the Act.-
          Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or any judgment,
          decree or order of any court or other authority, no alteration of
          the age or date of birth of a State servant as accepted and recorded   C
          or deemed to have been accepted and recorded in his service
          register or book or any other record of service under section 3
          shall, in so far as it relates to his conditions of service as such
          State servant, be made except under section 5.
          5. Alteration of age or date of birth of State servants.- (1)          D
          Subject to subsection (2), the State Government may, at any time,
          after an inquiry, alter the 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:
                 Provided that no such alteration shall be made if the age       E
          and date of birth of a State servant has been accepted and recorded
          or deemed to have been accepted and recorded in the service
          register or book or any other record of service in pursuance of a
          decree of a civil court obtained by the State servant1 [after he
          became such servant]1 against the State Government:                    F
                Provided further that no such alteration shall be made
          without giving the State servant concerned a reasonable
          opportunity of being heard.
                 (2) No such alteration to the advantage of a State servant
          shall be made unless he has made an application for the purpose        G
          within three years from the date on which his age and date of
          birth is accepted and recorded in the service register or book or
          any other record of service or within one year from the date of
          commencement of this Act, whichever is later.
1
    Inserted by Act 22 of 1977 w.e.f. 29.7.1977                                  H
642            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A                  6. Bar of jurisdiction of courts.- (1) No court shall have
            jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is
            required to be decided under this Act.
                  (2) No decision under this Act shall be questioned in any
            court of law.
B            8. So far as the appellant corporation is concerned, they adopted
      the provisions of the Act, 1974 by resolution dated 17.05.1991. Therefore,
      as such the request for change of date of birth as per the Act, 1974 as
      adopted by the appellant – corporation in the year 1991 was required to
      be made by respondent No.1 – employee within a period of one year
C     from 17.05.1991 being the employee of the appellant - corporation.
      However, respondent No.1 – employee made the request for change of
      date of birth vide notice dated 23.06.2007 i.e. after the lapse of 24 years
      since he joined the service and nearly after the lapse of 16 years from
      the date of adoption of enactment (Act, 1974) by the appellant –
      corporation. The High Court in the impugned judgment and order has
D     observed that nothing is on record that resolution dated 17.05.1991
      adopting the Act, 1974 was brought to the notice of the employee and
      that therefore respondent No.1 – employee might not be aware of the
      applicability of the Act, 1974. Aforesaid cannot be accepted. Being the
      employee of the corporation, he was supposed to know the rules and
E     regulations applicable to the employees of the corporation. Ignorance of
      law cannot be an excuse to get out of the applicability of the statutory
      provisions.
            9. Even otherwise and assuming that the reasoning given by the
      High Court for the sake of convenience is accepted in that case also
F     even respondent No.1 – employee was not entitled to any relief or change
      of date of birth on the ground of delay and laches as the request for
      change of date of birth was made after lapse of 24 years since he joined
      the service. At this stage, few decisions of this court on the issue of
      correction of the date of birth are required to be referred to.

G           9.1 In the case of Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran (Supra), it is
            observed and held as under:-
            “7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be
            dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only
            the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any
            such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public
H
     KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                                  643
       LIMITED v. T.P. NATARAJA & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting         A
      for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected
      in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury,
      inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the
      officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years,
      within which time many officers who are below him in seniority
                                                                                 B
      waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever…”
      9.2 In the case of State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (Supra) in
paragraph 8 and 12, it is observed and held as under:-
      “8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction
      of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve          C
      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.
      Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the
      irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim      D
      is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per
      the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned,
      as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the
      person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue
      a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this        E
      Court has expressed the view that 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.         F
      No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep
      over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2
      SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ).
      12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades
      in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to       G
      the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there
      was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the
      period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that
      even in such a situation such an application should be filed which
      can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent      H
644            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A           25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be
            held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was
            made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the
            plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial
            Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application
            is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical
B
            error in recording of his date of birth in the service book.”
             9.3 In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others
      v. R. Basavaraju (Supra), it is observed as under:-
            “5. The law with regard to correction of date of birth has been
C           time and again discussed by this Court and held that once the date
            of birth is entered in the service record, as per the educational
            certificates and accepted by the employee, the same cannot be
            changed. Not only that, this Court has also held that a claim for
            change in date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of
            retirement”
D
             9.4 In the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. v. Shyam
      Kishore Singh (Supra) of which one of us (Justice A.S. Bopanna) was a
      party to the bench has observed and held in paragraph 9 & 10 as under:-
            “9. This Court has consistently held that the request for change of
E           the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is
            not sustainable. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in
            that regard relied on the decision in the case of State of
            Maharashtra and Anr. v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble (2010)14
            SCC 423 wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court
            were taken note and was held as hereunder:
F
               “16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance
               on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha
               Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [(2005) 11 SCC465: 2006
               SCC (L&S) 96]. In this case, this Court has considered a
               number of judgments of this Court and observed that the
G              grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should
               not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.
               17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber
               Dutt Semwal [(2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106]
               relief was denied to the government employee on the ground
H              that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                              645
  LIMITED v. T.P. NATARAJA & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

    years of service. While setting aside the judgment of the High      A
    Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to
    have interfered with the decision after almost three decades.
    19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case
    that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a large
    number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end       B
    must be discouraged by the court. The relevant portion of the
    judgment in Home Deptt.v. R. Kirubakaran [1994 Supp (1) SCC
    155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (1994) 26 ATC 828] reads as
    under: (SCC pp. 158- 59, para 7)
    “7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a        C
    public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his
    service]. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for
    correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned
    has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years,
    below him for their respective promotions are affected in this
    process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch     D
    as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer
    concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within
    which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting
    for their promotion, may lose their promotion forever. …
    According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be       E
    lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the
    grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his
    date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of
    materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made
    out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue
    a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim        F
    only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or
    the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real
    injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction
    of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure
    prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. …       G
    the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his
    date of birth, in his service book.”
 “10. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good
 evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous,
 the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In that         H
646      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A     regard, in State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas, (Supra) it is held as
      hereunder:-
      “8. It needs to be emphasised that 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
B     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.
      Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the
      irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim
      is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per
C     the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned,
      as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the
      person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue
      a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this
      Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes
D     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 sleepover
E     their rights” (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC
      162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ).
      12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades
      in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to
      the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there
F     was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the
      period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that
      even in such a situation such an application should be filed which
      can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent
      25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be
G     held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was
      made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the
      plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial
      Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application
      is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical
      error in recording of his date of birth in the service book.”
H
     KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT                                647
       LIMITED v. T.P. NATARAJA & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

     10. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on          A
change of date of birth can be summarized as under:
      (i)   application for change of date of birth can only be as per the
            relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
      (ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed
           as a matter of right;                                               B

      (iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches
            also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service
            and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the
            age of superannuation.
                                                                               C
       11. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this court in the
aforesaid decisions, the application of the respondent for change of date
of birth was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also
and therefore as such respondent employee was not entitled to the decree
of declaration and therefore the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court is unsustainable and not tenable at law.                     D
       12. However, considering the fact that when the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court has been implemented and respondent
No.1 has retired thereafter considering his date of birth as 24.01.1961, it
is observed that the present judgment and order shall not affect
respondent No.1 – employee and we decide the question of law in terms          E
of the above in favour of the appellant – corporation. With this Civil
Appeal No. 5720 of 2021 stands disposed of.
       13. So far as the Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2021 arising out of the
SLP No.1062 of 2020 is concerned, it is true that while passing the
impugned judgment and order the High Court heavily relied upon the             F
judgment in RFA No.1674 of 2013 (subject matter of Civil No.5720 of
2021) which also is not sustainable in law as observed hereinabove.
However considering the fact that thereafter after the impugned judgment
and order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the High Court in W.P. No.109447
of 2019 directing the appellant – corporation to consider the case of the
                                                                               G
original writ petitioner – respondent herein in light of the decision in the
case of RFA No.1674 of 2013, 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 the learned Single Judge and the
                                                                               H
648                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A     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 the appellant – corporation as observed hereinabove.


B     Ankit Gyan                                               Appeal disposed of.




C




D




E




F




G




H