STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.versusVALI MOHMED DOSABHAI SINDHI

                                                                                       A


                           STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
                                           v.
                          VALI MOHMED DOSABHAI SINDHI
                                                                                       B
                                    JULY 19, 2006

             [ARIJJTPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA, JJ.]


           Service Law:
                                                                                       c
           Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959; Rule 171:

            Public Servant-Date of Birth--Correction in-Held: A claim for
     correction in date of birth in the service records of a public servant should D
      not be made/entertained belatedly-Courts/Tribunal should keep into
     consideration the interest of not only the public servant concerned but also
     the interest ofjuniors to the public servant while dealing with such application
     for correction-Court/Tribunal should refrain in issuing any direction unless
     a clear case on the basis of conclusive evidencelirrefi1table proof is made out
·C    within a reasonable time to its satisfaction-They must be slow in granting E
     an interim reliejlcontinuation in service unless prima facie evidence of
     unimpeachable character is produced in order to safeguard the interest of
     immediate junior to the public servant-It is not permissible to grant any
     change/correction in terms of specific provisions for correction of date of
      birth-Single Judge of the High Court erred in allowing correction and the F
     Division Bench in affirming it-Hence, impugned judgment cannot be
     sustained.

           Respondent, a Police Constable, had filed an application for making a
     correction in his date of birth in the service record. Since the prayer was not
     accepted by the authorities concerned, he had filed a writ petition before the    G
     High Court. The incumbent was retired from service on reaching the age of
     superannuation. Later, the writ petition was allowed by the High Court
     directing the authorities for payment of arrears to the incumbent. The
     appellant-State preferred LPA which was dismissed by the High Court

                                          685                                          H
    686                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   directing that all the salary benefits should be given to the employee, however,
    the arrears need not be paid to him. Hence the present appeal.

              Appellant-State contended that no reason was assigned by the
    respondent as to why he had made a request for change of his date of birth
    only after receiving the order of his retirement and as to why he remained
B   silent for nearly about 35 years while he was in service; that the entry in the
    service record was made on the basis of his own statement; that no materials
    were adduced to show that there was any error in the date of birth so recorded;
    and that on mere production of school leaving certificate, authenticity of which
    was doubtful, the High Court should not have granted a relief.
c         Allowing the appeal, the Court

           HELD:l.l. Rule 171 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules clearly provides
    that the request made for alteration of date of birth should not be entertained
    after the preparation of the service book of the Government servant and in
D   any event not after the completion of the probation period or :.fter 5 years of
    continuous service whichever was earlier unless it is shown that the entry
    was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual
    in question or is an obvious clerical error. [689-D-E)

          1.2. Most of the States have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof
E   issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant
    in respect of correction of his date of birth in the service record is to be 'dealt
    with and what procedure is to be followed. The sole object of such rules being
    that any such claim regarding correction of the date of birth should not be
    made or entertained after decades, especially on the eve of superannuation of
    such public servant. [689-H; 690-A)
F
          State ofAssam v. Dak.sha Prasad Deka, (1970) 3 SCC 624; Government
    of Andhra Pradesh v. M Hayagreev Sarma, [1990) 2 SCC 682; Executive
    Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and Ors. v. Rangadhar Mal/ik,
    [1993] Supp. I SCC 763 and Union ofIndia v. Harnam Singh, (199312 SCC
G   162, relied on.

          1.3. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt
    with by the Courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public
    servant concerned. Any such direction for correction of the date of birth of
    the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting
H   for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this             ....
                STATE OF GUJARAT r. VALI MOHMED OOSABHAI SINDHI               687

process. [691-D-EI                                                                    A
        2. Unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be
 conclusive in nature, is made out by the employee and !hat too within a
 reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the Court or
 the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis
 of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction         B
 is issued or declaration made, 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. If no rule or order
 has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application        C
 has to be filed, then such application must be filed within at least a reasonable
 time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which
 may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. It has come to
 the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications
are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after           D
 the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be
slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service, unless prima
facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public
servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have
enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused injustice
 to his immediate junior. [691-F-G-H; 692-A-B-CI                                      E
      The Secretary and Commissioner Home Department and Ors. v. R.
Kirubakaran, JT (1993) 5 SC 404; State a/Tamil Nadu v. T. V. Venugopalan,
[199416 SCC 302; State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ramanath Patnaik, [19971 5
sec 181 and State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gulaichi (Smt.), [20031 6 sec 483,              F
relied on.

      3. In the instant l:ase the Rules clearly indicate the permissible area
for correction of date of birth. In view of the specific provisions made, it was
not permissible to effect any change. Hence, the order of Single Judge and
impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court affirming it cannot         G
be sustained. [692-G-HJ

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3043 of2006.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2004 of the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in L.P.A. No. 706/1994.                                          H
    688                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behera and Shivangi for the Appellants.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Leave granted.

B         State of Gujarat and Inspector General of Police, Ahmedabad and District
    Superintendent of Police, Mehsana, call in question legality of the judgment
    rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the Letters
    Patent Appeal filed by the appellant. By the impugned judgment, order of
    learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent was
C   upheld.

           The factual controversy lies within a very narrow compass. The
    respondent was appointed as an unarmed Police Constable on 3. l 0.1947. At
    the time of appointment his year of birth was mentioned as 1923. On this basis
    he was to retire with effect from 1.11.1981 on reaching the age of 58 years.
D   Accordingly, order dated 16.2.1981 was passed by the concerned Authority.
    It was indicated to the respondenl that he will be retiring with effect from
    1.11.1981. On receiving the order, he submitted an application for making a
    change of his date of birth in the service record. According to him, he was
    born in the year 1928 and not in 1923. Since the prayer was not accepted, he
E   filed a writ petition. Though prayer for interim relief i.e. to stay operation of
    the order dated 16.2.1981 was made, no interim direction was given and he
    retired from service reaching the age of superannuation with effect from
    1.11.1981. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 30.4.1993 and it was
    held that the he was to retire in the year 1986 with effect from 1.11.1986.
    Accordingly, direction was given to the respondents in the writ petition to
F   pay the arrears for the period from 1.11.1981to1.11.1986.

          Learned Single Judge held that the school leaving certificate produced
    by the respondent deserved acceptance and on that basis he ought to have
    been continued till 1.11.1986. It was observed that the correctness of the
G   school leaving certificate on which the respondent based his claim was not
    doubted as no counter affidavit was filed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was
    allowed by order dated 30.4.1993.

         The appellant preferred an LPA before the High Court which was
  dismissed so far as the date of controversy is concerned. However the arrears
H were directed not to be paid. All other salary benefits were directed to be
  given.
         STATEOFGU.IARATr. VALIMOHMEDDOSABHAISINDHl(PASAYAT,J.l              689

       In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted         A
that no reason was assigned by the respondent as to why he requested
change of his date of birth after receiving the order relating to his retirement.
He joined service in 1947, for nearly 35 years he remained silent. The entry
in the service record was made on the basis of his own statement. No
materials were a_dduced to show that there was any error in the date recorded.       B
On mere production of school leaving certificate, authenticity of which was
doubtful, the High Court should not have granted a relief. It was pointed out
that in the so-called school leaving certificate no date of birth was indicated
and only the year was mentioned. This suspicious circumstance has been
completely lost sight of by the High Court.

       There is no response on behalf of the respondent.
                                                                                     c
      It is to be noted that there are several rules governing request to
change the date of birth. One of them is Rule 171 of the Bombay Civil Services
Rules, 1959 (in short the 'Rules'). This Rule clearly provides that the request
made for alteration of date of birth should not be entertained after the             D
preparation of the service book of the Government servant and in any event
not after the completion of the probation period or after 5 years of continuous
service whichever was earlier. The said rule categorically provides that once
an entry of age or date of birth has been made in the service book, no
alteration of the entry afterwards should be allowed unless it is shown that
the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than              E
individual in question or is an obvious clerical error.

      Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date
of exit, which is said as date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed.
That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service        F
book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in
all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, it is
necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. But, of late a
trend can be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of their retirement
raise a dispute about their records, by either invoking the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia or by filing applications   G
before the concerned Administrative Tribunals, or even filing suits for
adjudication as to whether the dates of birth recorded were correct or not.

      Most of the States have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof
issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant
in respect of correction of his date of birth in the service record is to be dealt   H
    690                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A with and what procedure is to be followed. In many such rules a period has
  been prescribed within which if any public servant makes any grievance in
  respect of error in the recording of his date of birth, the application for that
  purpose can be entertained. The sole object of such rules being that any such
  claim regarding correction, of the date of birth should not be made or entertained
B after decades, especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant.
  In the case of State ofAssam v. Daksha Prasad Deka, (1970] 3 SCC 624, this
  Court said that the date of the compulsory retirement "must in our judgment,
  be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the
  respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first
  corrected consistently with the appropriate procedure." In the case of
C Government ofAndhra Pradesh v. M Hayagreev Sarma, [1990) 2 SCC 682 the
  A.P. Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules,
  1984 were considered. The public servant concerned had claimed correction
  of his date of birth with reference to the births and deaths register maintained
  under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886. The Andhra
  Pradesh Administrative Tribunal corrected the date of birth as claimed by the
D petitioner before the Tribunal, in view of the entry in the births and deaths
  register ignoring the rules framed by the State Government referred to above.
  It was inter alia observed by this Court:

            'The object underlying Rule 4 is to avoid repeated applications by a
            government employee for the correction of his date of birth and with
E           that end in view it provides that a government servant whose date of
            birth may have been recorded in the service r;gister in accordance
            with the rules applicable to him and if that entry had become final
            under the rules prior to the commencement of 1984 Rules, he will not
            be entitled for alteration of his date of birth."
F In Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and Ors. v.
    Rangadhar Mal/ik, [ 1993) Supp. I SCC 763, Rule 65 of the Orissa General
    Finance Ruies, was examined which provides that representation made for
    correction of date of birth near about the time of superannuation shall not be
    entertained. The respondent in that case was appointed on November 16,
G   1968. On September 9, 1986, for the first time, he made a representation for
    changing his date of birth in his service register. The Tribunal issued a
    direction as sought for by the respondent. This Court set aside the Order of
    the Tribunal saying that the claim of the respondent that his date of birth was
    November 27, 1938 instead of November 27, 1928 should not have been
H   accepted on basis of the documents produced in support of the said claim,
         STATEOFGUJARATv. VALIMOHMEDDOSABHA!SINDH![PASAYAT,J.]             69 J

because the date of birth was recorded as per document produced by the said       A
respondent at the time of his appointment and he had also put his signature
in the service roll accepting his date of birth as November 27, 1928. The said
respondent did not take any step nor made any representation for correcting
his date of birth till September 9, 1986. In case of Union of India v. Harnam
Singh, [1993] 2 sec 162 the position in law was again re-iterated and it was      B
observed:

        "A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage
        of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request
        later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim
        correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable C
        proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier
        recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for
        seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do
        so without any unreasonable delay."

An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by D
the Courts, 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 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
as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, E
continues in office, in svme cases for years, within which time many officers
who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may loose the
promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts
appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior.
This is certainly an important and relevant aspect, which cannot be lost sight F
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 and that too within a reasonable time as
provided in the rules governing the service, the Court or the Tribunal should
not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which G
make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or
declaration made, 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. If no rule or order has been
framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to H
    692                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The
    applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may
    amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such
    question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong
    recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part
    of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or
B   the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the
    entries in respect of their date of birth in the service books. By this process,
    it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately
    their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for
    months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must,
C   therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service,
    unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because
    if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails,
    he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby
    caused injustice to his immediate junior.

D        The position was succinctly stated by this Court in the above terms in
    The Secretary and Commissioner Home Department and Ors. v. R.
    Kirubakaran, JT (1993) 5 SC 404.

          As observed by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. T. V. Venugopalan,
    [1994] 6 SCC 302 and State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ramanath Patnaik, [1997]
E   5 SCC 181 when the entry was made in the service record and when the
    employee was in service he did not make any attempt to have the service
    record corrected, any amount of evidence produced subsequently is of no
    consequence. The view expressed in R. Kirubakaran 's case (supra) was
    adopted.

F        The above position was also noticed in State of U.P. and Ors. v.
    Gu/aichi (Smt.), [2003] 6 SCC 483.

         In the instant case the Rules referred to above clearly indicate the
    permissible area for correction of date of birth. In view of the specific provisions
    made, it was not permissible to effect any change.
G
          The inevitable conclusion is that the order of learned Single Judge and
    impugned judgment of the Division Bench affirming it cannot be sustained.
    Both the orders are set aside. The appeal is allowed but without any orders
    as to costs.

H S.K.S.                                                              Appeal allowed.