STATE OF M.P. & ORS.versusPREMLAL SHRIVAS

                          [2011] 11 S.C.R. 444


A                        STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
                                   v.
                         PREMLAL SHRIVAS
                  (Civil Appeal No. 2331 of 2004)
                         SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
B
         [D.K. JAIN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

        Date of birth:

c      Correction of date of birth of a government servant
  entered in the service book at the time of entry into service -
  Jurisdiction of Tribunal and Court to direct the employer to
  make such correction - Held: Court or Tribunal has to be
  circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for
  correction of date of birth recorded in the service book - If a
0
  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
E of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish
  that the recorded date of birth is erroneous - No Court/
  Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their
  rights - Delay/laches - Jurisdiction.

        Correction of date of birth - Application for, filed by
F respondent 25 years after his induction into service -
  Rejected by employer - Tribunal upheld the decision of
  employer - High Court directed the employer to correct the
  date of birth - On appeal, held: It cannot be said that the
  decision of the Tribunal, rejecting respondent's plea that it was
G for the first time in the year 1990 when he was promoted as
  Head Constable, that he noticed the error in the service
  record, was vitiated- Respondent was aware ever since 1965
  that his date of birth as recorded in the service book was 1st
  June, 1942 and not 30th June, 1945 - Delay of over two
H                                444
    STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. PREMLAL SHRIVAS                 445


decades in applying for the correction of date of birth was ex-    A
facie fatal to 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 - There was also no substance in the plea of the
 respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code          B
 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 - Rule 84 of the Code provides that the date of birth
'recorded in the service book at the time of entry into serltice   c
 is conclusive and binding on the government servant -
 However, an exception was carved out in the rule, permitting
 the public servant to request later for correcting his age
 provided that incorrect recording of f)ge is on account of a
 clerical error or mistake caused due to negligence - Onus is      0
 on the employee concerned to prove such negligence - No
 evidence placed on record by the respondent to show that the
 date of birth recorded as 1st June, 1942 was due to the
 negligence of some other person - In this fact situation, High
 Court ought not to have directed the appellants to correct the    E
 date of birth of the respondent under Rule 84 - Delayllaches
 - Madhya Pradesh Financial Code - Rule 84.

     The respondent was appointed to the post of a police
constable in 1965. In the service book, prepared at the
time of his entering the service, his date of birth was            F
recorded as 1st June, 1942. His father's name was
recorded as Gayadin. In 1990, he made a representation
to the appellants seeking correction of his father's name
and date of birth in the service record. The representation
was rejected on the ground that the service record of the          G
respondent was prepared on the instructions of his
maternal grandfather accompanying the respondent at
the time of enrolment, the same carries his finger and
thumb impressions and duly attested by the then
Superintendent of Police on 7 .9.1976. Moreover at the             H
    446      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A time of enrolment, the respondent was subjected to a
  medical examination on 27.9.1965, when the Examining
  Medical Authority had certified his age to be 23 years. The
  respondent filed an application before the Administrative
  Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application. The
B respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court
  which was allowed.

       The question which arose for consideration in the
  instant appeal was whether the High Court was justified
C in directing the appellant to change date of birth of the
  respondent in his service record on his request made
  after a lapse of over two decades of his joining the
  service.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
D
       HELD: 1. 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 the Tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and
E 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
F 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. If a government servant makes a
G 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
H
    STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. PREMLAL SHRIVAS                   447


that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No             A
Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who
sleep over their rights. [Para 9) [452-C-G]

     Union of India vs. Harnam Singh (1993) 2 SCC 162:
 1993 (1) SCR 862 - relied on.
                                                                     B
      Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh vs. Megh
 Raj Garg and Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 482: 2010 (7) SCR 172 -
 referred to.

      2. The High Court committed a manifest error of law            c
 in ignoring the vital fact that the respondent had applied
 for correction of his date of birth in 1990, i.e., 25 years after
 his induction into service as a constable. It is evident from
 the record that the respondent was aware ever since 1965
 that his date of birth as recorded in the service book was          D
 1st June, 1942 and not 30th June, 1945. It had come on
 record of the Trfbunal that at the time of r:espondent's
 medical examination, his age as on 27th September, 1965
 was mentioned to be 23 years and his father's name was
 recorded as Gayadin; and in his descriptive roll, prepared          E
 by the Senior Superintendent of Police as well, his
 father's name was shown as Gayadin and his date of birth
 as 1st June, 1942 and this document was signed by the
~respondent and the form of agreement known as "Mamuli
 Sipahi Ka lkrarnama" was filled up by the respondent
 himself with the very same particulars. Therefore, it               F
 cannot be said that the decision· of the Tribunal rejecting
 respondent's plea that it was for the first time in the year
 1990, when he was promoted as Head Constable, that he
 noticed the error in the service record was vitiated. The
 delay of over two decades in applying for the correction            G
 of date of birth is ex-facie fatal to 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
                                                                     H
   448     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011) 11 S.C.R


A 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 held to
  be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was
8 made to explain th~ said delay. There was 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
C in recording of his date of birth in the service book. It is
  manifest from a bare reading of Rule 84 of the M.P.
  Financial Code that the date of birth recorded in the
  service book at the time of entry into service is
  conclusive and binding on the government servant. The
  said rule has been made in order to limit the scope of
D correction of date of birth in the service record. However,
  an exception has been carved out in the rule, permitting
  the public servant to request later for correcting his age
  provided that incorrect recording of age is on account of
  a clerical error or mistake. This is a salutary rule, which
E was, perhaps, inserted with a view to safeguard the
  interest of employees so that they do not suffer because
  of the mistakes committed by the official staff. Obviously,
  only that clerical error or mistake would fall within the
  ambit of the said rule which is caused due to the
F negligence_ or want of proper care on the part of some
  person other than the employee seeking correction.
  Onus is on the employee concerned to prove such
  negligence. In the instant case, no evidence was placed
  on record by the respondent to show that the date of
G birth recorded as 1st June, 1942 was due to the
  negligence of some other person. He failed to show that
  the date of birth was recorded incorrectly, due to want
  of care on the part of some other person, despite the fact
  that a correct date of birth had been shown on the
H documents presented or signed by him. In this fact
   STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. PREMLAL SHRIVAS                  449


situation, the High Court ought not to have directed the           A
appellants to correct the date of birth of the respondent
under Rule 84 of the said rules. The decision of the High
Court, holding that the respondent was entitled to get his
date of birth corrected in the service record, cannot be
sustained. [Paras 12, 14, 16] [454-G; 455-A-F; 456-D-F;            B
457-C-E]

     Secretary And Commissioner, Home Department and
Ors. vs. R. Kirubakaran-1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 1993 (2)
Suppl. SCR 376; State of U.P. and Anr. vs. Shiv Narain             C
Upadhyaya (2005) 6 SCC 49: 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 847;
Commissioner of Police, Bombay and Anr. vs. Bhagwan V.
Lahane (1997) 1 SCC 247: 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 199; Union
of India vs. C. Rama Swamy and Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 647:
1997 (3) SCR 760 - relied on.
                                                                   D
                      Case Law Reference:
    2010 (7) SCR 172           Referred to           Para 7
    1993 (1) SCR 862           Relied on             Para 9
                                                                   E
    1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 376        Relied on         Para 10
    2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 847        Relied on         Para 11
    1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 199        Relied on         Para 15
    1997 (3) SCR 760           Relied on             Para 15       F

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2331 of 2004.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 17.01.2002 of the High
Court of Judicature at Jabalpur (M.P.) in Writ Petition No. 2561   G
of 2001 ..

    Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellants.

    Mridula Ray Bharadwaj for the Respondent.
                                                                   H
    450      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 11 S.C.R.


A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       O.K. JAIN, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the
  judgment and order dated 17th January, 2002 passed by the
  High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench, in Writ Petition
B No. 2561 of 2001. By the impugned judgment, the High Court
  has allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent,
  directing the appellants to correct the service record of the
  respondent, incorporating his date of birth as 30th June, 1945
  in place of 1st June, 1942, within a period of one month from
C the date of the impugned order.

         2. To appreciate the controversy involved, a brief reference
    to the facts, as stated in the impugned judgment, would suffice.
    These are:

0      The respondent was appointed to the post of a Police
  Constable in the year 1965. In the service book, prepared at
  the time of his entering the service, his date of birth was
  recorded as 1st June, 1942. His· father's name was recorded
  as Gayadin. Ttiis position continued till 1990, when he made a
E representation to the appellants seeking correction of his
  father's name and date of birth in the service record. The plea
  of the respondent was that at the time of joining the service,
  his date of birth as also the name of his father was wrongly
  recorded on the basis of the information furnished by his
  maternal grandfather, who was accompanying him at that point
F of time as he was living with him after the death of his father.
  According to the respondent, he came to know about the
  mistake when he was promoted as Head Constable. In support
  of his application, the respondent submitted his class IV
  marksheet, transfer certificate of class VIII and a certificate from
G a local MLA.

       3. By order dated 8th March 1995, the representation
  came to be rejected, inter-alia, on the ground that the service
  record of the respondent was prepared on the instructions of
H his maternal grandfather, accompanying the respondent at the
   STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. PREMLAL SHRIVAS                  451
                 [D.K. JAIN, J.]
time of enrolment, the same carries his finger and thumb           A
impressions and was duly attested by the then Superintendent
of Police on 7th September, 1976. Moreover, at the time of
enrolment, the respondent had been subjected to a medical
examination on 27th September 1965, when the Examining
Medical Authority had certified his age to be 23 years.            B

     4. Being dissatisfied, the respondent preferred an
application before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as "the Tribunal"). Referring to several documents
brought on record by the appellants, which included some
documents which had been filled up by the respondent himself       C
and showing the date of his birth as 1st June, 1942 and father's
name as Gayadin, the Tribunal dismissed the application vide
order dated 18th April, 2001.

     5. Having failed before the Tribunal, the respondent filed    o
a writ pet!tion before the High Court which set aside the order
of the Tribunal and allowed the writ petition: Being aggrieved,
the State of Madhya Pradesh and two of its functionaries are
before us in this appeal.

     6. Despite service of notice, the respondent remains          E
unrepresented. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for
the appellams.

      7. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the
appellants, strenuously urged that the High Court ought not to     F
have directed a change in date of birth of the respondent, on
his request, made after a lapse of over two decades of his
joining the service. It was asserted that some of the documents
in which his father's· name was shown as Gayadin, bore his
signatures and, therefore, the plea of the respondent that he      G
was not aware of the contents of his service record cannot be
accepted. It was also submitted that as per Rule 84 of the M.P.
Financial Code, the date of birth recorded in the service record
is conclusive and only a bonafide clerical mistake in the said
record can be corrected. To bolster his submission, learned        H
    452       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A   counsel commended us to a recent decision of this Court in
    Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Vs. Megh Raj
    Garg & Anr. 1, wherein it has been held that the declaration of
    age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into
    government service is conclusive and binding on the
8   government servant.

          8. Having considered the issue at hand in light of the afore-
    stated factual scenario, and the principles of law on the point,
    we are convinced that the High Court was not justified in
    directing change in date of birth of the respondent.
c
       9. 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 the Tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and
o 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
E 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 Court
  has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a
F 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
G clearly erroneous. No Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid
  of those who sleep over their rights (See: Union of India Vs.
  Harnam Singh 2 ).

    1.   c2010> e sec 482.
H 2. (1993) 2 sec 1s2
   STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. PREMLAL SHRIVAS                   453
                 [D.K. JAIN, J.]
    10. In Secretary And Commissioner, Home Department               A
& Ors. Vs. R. Kirubakaran 3, indicating the factors relevant in
disposal of an application for correction of date of birth just
before the superannuation and highlighting the scope of
interference by the Courts or the Tribunals in such matters, this
Court has observed thus :                                            B

    "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        C
    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 ~re 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,         D
    within which time many officers who are below him in
    seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their
    promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a
    person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of
    retirement of his immediate senior. According to us , this       E
    is an important aspect, which cannot be 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        F
    by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue
    a direction, on the basis of materials which make such
    claim 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 G
    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
3. 1994 supp (1) sec 155.                                         H
    454       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A         such application has to be filed, then such application
          must be filed within the time, which can be held to be
          reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in
          support of s4ch claim, which may amount to irrefutable
          proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such
B         question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove 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 the tribunal on the
          eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the
c         entries in respect of their dates 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, therefore, be slow in granting
D
          an interim relief for 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 merely caused
E         injustice to his immediate junior."

                                                 (Emphasis supplied)

          11. In State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya 4,
F while reiterating the aforesaid position of law, this Court has
  castigated the practice of raising dispute by the public servants
  about incorrect recording of date of birth in their service book
  on the eve of their retirement.

       12. Viewed in this perspective, we are of the opinion that
G the High Court committed a manifest error of law in ignoring
  the vital fact that the respondent had applied for correction of
  his date' of birth in 1990, i.e., 25 years after his induction into
  service as a constable. It is evident from the record that the

H 4. c2oos) a sec 49.
   STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. PREMLAL SHRIVAS                      455
                 [D.K. JAIN, J.]
respondent was aware ever since 1965 that his date of birth             A
as recorded in the service book is 1st June, 1942 and not 30th
June, 1945. It had come on record of the Tribunal that at the
time of respondent's medical examination, his age as on 27th
September, 1965 was mentioned to be 23 years and his
father's name was recorded as Gayadin; and in his descriptive           B
roll, prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police as well,
his father's name was shown as Gayadin and his date of birth
as 1st June, 1942 and this document was signed by the
respondent and the form of agreement known as "Mamuli
Sipahi Ka lkrarnama" was filled up by the respondent himself            c
with the very same particulars. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the declsicm of the Tribunal rejecting respondent's plea that.it
was-fur the first time in the year 1990, when he was promoted
as Head Constable, that he noticed the error in the service
record was vitiated. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay       0
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 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
                                                                        E
reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 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.               F
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
ser\tice book.
                                                                        G
     13. Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code, heavily relied upon
by the respondent reads as under :

     "Rule 84. Every person newly appointed to a service or a
     post under Government should at the time of the                    H
    456       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A         appointment declare the date of his birth by the Christian
          era with as far as possible confirmatory documentary
          evidence such as a matriculation certificate, municipal birth
          certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known, an
          approximate date may be given. The actual date or the
B         assumed date determined under Rule 85 should be
          recorded in the history of service; Service book or any other
          record that may be kept in respect of the Government
          servant's service under Government. The date of birth,
          once recorded in this manner, must be deemed to be
c         absolutely conclusive, and except in the case of a clerical
          error no revision of such a declaration shall be allowed to
          be made at a later period for any purpose whatever."

       14. It is manifest from a bare reading of Rule 84 of the M.P.
  Financial Code that the date of birth recorded in the service
D book at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding
  on the government servant. It is <?lear that the said rule has been
  made in order to limit the scope of correction of date of birth
  in the service record. However, an exception has been carved
  out in the rule, permitting the public servant to request later for
E correcting his age provided that incorrect recording of age is
  on account of a clerical error or mistake. This is a salutary rule,
  which was, perhaps, inserted with a view to safeguard the
  interest of employees so that they do not suffer because of the
  mistakes committed by the official staff. Obviously, only that
F clerical error or mistake would fall within the ambit of the said
  rule which is caused due to the neg_ligence or want of proper
  care on the part of some person other than the employee
  seeking correction. Onus is on the employee concerned to
  prove such negligence.
G
        15. In Commissioner of Police, Bombay and Anr. Vs.
    Bhagwan V. Lahane 5 , this Court has held that for an employee
    seeking the correction of his date of birth, it is a condition
    precedent that he must show, that the incorrect recording of the

H 5. (1997) 1 sec 247.
     STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. PREMLAL SHRIVAS                 457
                   [D.K. JAIN, J.]
date of birth was made due to negligence of some other              A
person, or that the same was an obvious clerical error failing
which the relief should not be granted to him. Again, in Union
of India Vs. C. Rama Swamy & Ors. 6 , it has been observed
that a bonafide error would normally be one where an officer
has indicated a particular date of birth in his application form    B
or any other document at the time of his employment but, by
mistake or oversight a different date has been recorded.

      16. As aforesaid, in the instant case, no evidence has
been placed on record by the respondent to show that the date
of birth recorded as 1st June, 1942 was due to the negligence       C
of some other person. He had failed to show that the date of
birth was recorded incorrectly, due to want of care on the part
of some other person, despite the fact that a correct date of
birth had been shown on the documents presented or signed
by him. We hold that in this fact situation the High Court ought    D
not to have directed the appellants to correct the date of birth
of the respondent under Rule 84 of the said rules.

     17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the decision of the
High Court, holding that the respondent was entitled to get his     E
date of birth corrected in the service record, cannot be
sustained. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment is set aside, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs throughout.

D.G.                                                                F
                                               Appeal allowed.




6.   (1997) 4   sec 647.