Holding

A correction of date of birth must be applied for within five years of the notification’s coming into force; the respondents’ delayed applications are barred and the interim order is set aside.

Summary

The respondents, who had been employed as mazdoors between 1961 and 1969, sought to have their dates of birth corrected in service records after receiving retirement notices in 1995, relying on Panchayat certificates and requesting a medical board assessment. The single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed their petitions, holding that the correction request was not made within five years of the Government of India notification dated 30‑Nov‑1979 prescribing the procedure for such changes. The division bench later issued an interim order directing the Director of Health Services to arrange a medical examination, which the appellant challenged as prejudicial. The Supreme Court examined the statutory five‑year limitation, the lack of irrefutable proof, and the respondents' long delay, and held that the respondents were required to apply within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s interim order and allowed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether a government employee may seek correction of his date of birth after the expiry of the five‑year period prescribed by the 1979 Government of India notification.
Whether the High Court’s interlocutory order directing the respondents to appear before a medical board was valid.

Legislation cited

Fundamental Ruless. 56(m)

Subjects

correction of date of birthservice lawlimitation periodsuperannuationgovernment notificationmedical boardinterlocutory ordercivil servant

Judgment

A VISAKHAPATNAM DOCK LABOUR BOARD.
v.
E. ATCHANNA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY I, 1996

B
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

Se1vice Law-Cizange of date of bi1th-Notification dated 30. 11.1979
iss11ed by Govemment of India presoibing proced11re to be followed-Can- •
C didates req11ired to take steps within 5 yea1' from date of coming into force
of 1wtijiaatirm.

The respondents entered service of the appellant as Mazdoors be-
tween 1961 and 1969. At the time of their appointments the respondents
had not produced any proof regarding their dates of birth. Therefore, their
D age as could be ascertained from their physical appearance, was recorded
in their service books. As the respondents \Vere to attain the age of
superannuation beh.\'een April and July 1995, intitnations were given to
them individually regarding the dates of their retirement. The respondents
made representations, to the appellant to rectity their dates of birth on the
basis of certificates issued by Panchayat authorities "ith a re<1uest to send
E them to the Medical Board for ascertainment of their age. The requests
were rejected. The respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court,
praying for a declaration that they were entitled to continue in service till
they attained the age of superannuation calculated on the basis of their
correct dates of birth. In the alternative they also prayed to refer them to
F the Medical Board for ascertainment of their real age and continue them
in service in accordance "1th the determination to be made by the Board.
Dismissing the petitions, Single Judge of that High Court held that as the
request for correction of birth was not made within 5 years from the
notification dated 30.11.1979 issued by the Government of India, the
G appellant was justified in not entertaining their requests and for that
reason, prayer for referring them to the Medical Board also could not be
granted. In "Tit appeals, the Division Bench of the High Court passed an
interim order directing the Director, Health Services to fix a date and
accordingly inform the appellants therein for appearance before him or a
Board constituted by him for determination of their age by such scientific
H tests as were available. The appellant challenged the propriety of passing
1126
VISAKHAPATNAMDOCKLABOUR BD. v. E.ATCHANNA 1127

such an order at an interlocutory stage alleging that if this order was not A
-. ~ set aside it will cause serious prejudice to the case of the appellants.

Allowing the appeals, this Court

.HELD : Entry of the respondents in the service was between 1961 B
and 1969. l\fter remaining in service for more than 25 years they applied
for alteration of their dates of birth and that too after they received notices
regarding their superannuation. The reason given by the respondents for
alteration of their dates of birth was that their ages were recorded in the
service books only on the basis of their physical appearance. That may be
' so but it was not their case that they were not recorded in their presence. C
Merely because they are illiterate and had atlixed their thumb impression
in the service records it is not possible to believe that they did not know
what was recorded therein with respect to their dates of birth. Moreover,
the appellant had issued a Circular dated 10.7.1987 and it was intimated
to all concerned after Government of India had issued the Notif4".ation D
dated 30.li.1979 prescribing the procedure to be followed for change of
date of birth. The appellant is a Central Government Undertaking and
that the said Notification which is incorporated as Note 5 to Fundamental
Rule 56(m) applies to the respondents. Therefore, for alteration of their
dates of birth the respondents were required to take steps within 5 years
from the date of coming into force of the said notification. Even after the E
Circular was issued by the appellant, the respondents did not approach
the appellant "ithin reasonable time. The respondents had sought altera-
tion on the basis of the certificates which did not provide irrefutable proof
as regards their correct dates of birth, without deciding all these issues ii
.. was not proper to give the impugned directions. The request for referring F
the respondents to the medical board was refused by the appellant. The
prayer was also rejected by the learned Single Judge. Whether that should
have been done or not is itself in issue in the appeals. The impugned
directions given at an interlocutory stage were very likely to cause serious
prejudice to the appellant's case. [ll30-E-H; 1131-A-C]
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2599-
) 2601 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.95 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in WA.Nos. 1024-26 of 1995. H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A A J ayaram Additional Solicitor General, C.K. Sasi and Kailash
Vasdev for the Appellant. • r
L. Nageshwara Rao and S. Udaya Kumar Sagar for the Respondents.

B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

NANAVAT!. J. Leave granted.

These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Andhra
C Pradesh High Court in writ Appeal Nos. 1024, 1025 and 1026 of 1995.

Between 1961 and 1969 the respondents entered service of the
,,
appellant as Mazdoors. At the time of their appointments, the respondents
had not produced any proof regarding their dates of birth. Therefore, their
age as could be ascertained from their appearance, was recorded in their
D service books. As the respondents were to attain the age of superannuation
between April and July 1995, intimations were given to them individually
regarding the dates of their retirement. They made representations to the
appellant to rectify their dates of birth on the basis of certificates issued '
by Panchayat authorities. Subsequently, they also requested the appellant
E to send them to the Medical Board for ascertainment of their age. As the
appellant did not accede to their requests they filed writ petitions in the
High Court. They prayed for a declaration that they are entitled to continue
in service till they attain the age of superannuation calculated on the basis
of their correct birth dates. In the alternative, they also prayed that the
appellant be directed to refer them to the Medical Board for ascertainment
F of their real age and continue them in service in accordance with the
determination to be made by the Board. The petitions were heard by a
learned Single Judge of that Court. He not only doubted the veracity of
the certificates produced by the respondents but also held that as the
request for correction of birth dates was not made within 5 years from the
G notification dated 30.11.1979 issued by the Government of India, the ap-
pellant was justified in not entertaining their requests. The learned Judge
also held that for that reason, prayer for referring them to the Medical
Board also could not be granted. He, therefore, dismissed the petitions by
(
his common order dated 27.4.1995.

H On 17.7.1995 the respondents preferred writ appeals before the
VISAKHAPATNAM DOCK LABOURBD. v. E. ATCH.<>,.,'INA[NANAVATI,J.] 1129

Division Bench of the High Court. On 10.10.1995 it passed an interim order A
as it was of the opinion that before making any substantive order it should
.., have an independent assessment of the age of the appellants before it. By
that it gave the following directions :

"(1) The Director. Health Services. State of A.P. is directed to
fix a date and accordingly inform the appellants herein for ap- B
pearance before him or a Board constituted by him for determina-
tion of their age by such scientific tests as are available.

• (2) Appellants accordingly are directed to obtain from the
office of the Director. Health Services information about the date
fixed for their appearance and appear when directed to do so by
c
the Director, Health Services.

(3) The Director, Health Services is directed to submit a report
to this court about the a~e of the appellants herein.
D
All the above must be complied within one month. Post after one
month.

The appellant questions the propriety of passing such an order at an
interlocutory stage. It was submitted that if this order is not set aside it will
cause serious prejudice to the case of the appellants. On the other hand E
the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order on the ground
that earlier also the High Court had in similar matters passed such orders.

This Court in Union of India v. Hamam Singh 1993 (2) SCC 162 had
an occasion to deal with a case where an application by an employee for
correction of date of birth was made only after being notified about his F
date of superannuation and not within the period of 5 years from the date
of coming into force of the Government of India's Notification dated
November 30, 1979. In that case entry into the Government service was in
1956 and the application for correction of date of birth was made in 1991.
This Court observed that inaction of the employee for a period of about G
33 years from the date of joining service precluded him from showing that
entry of his date of birth in service record was not correct and that Central
Administrative Tribunal committed an error in issuing the direction to
correct his date of birth. This Court has further observed as under :

..... It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date H
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable 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. In the absence of any provision in the rules
and correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing
B
relief on grounds of !aches or stale claims, is generally applied by
the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the
Government to fix a time-limit, in the service rules, after which no
application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant
can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an applica-
•
c tion for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed,
therefore, 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. The law of limitation
may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and
the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep
D
over their rights and allow the period of limitation to .expire. Unless
altered, his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of
....
superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue <(

in service on the basis of his actual age.

E As regards the delay in making applications for correction facts of
these cases are almost similar to the facts in Harnam Singh's case (supra).
Entry of the respondents in the service was between 1961 and 1969. After
remaining in service for more than 25 years they applied for alteration of
their birth dates and that too after they received notices regarding their
F superannuation. The reason given by the respondents for alteration of their
dates of birth was that their ages were recorded in the service books only
on the basis of their physical appearance. That may be so : but it was not
their case that they were not recorded in their presence. Merely because
they are illiterate and had affixed their thumb impressions in the service
records it is not possible to believe that they did not know what was
G recorded therein with respect to their dates of birth. Moreover, the appel-
lant had issued a Circular dated 10.7.1987 and it was intimated to all
concerned after Government of India had issued the Notification dated (
30.11.1979 prescribing the procedure to be followed for change of date of
birth. The appellant is a Central Government undertaking and that the said
H Notification which is incorporated as Note 5 to Fundamental Rule 56(m)
VISAKHAPATNAM DOCK LABOUR BD. v. E. ATCHANNA[NANA V ATI, J.J 1131

applies to the respondents. Therefore, for alteration of their dates of birth A
the respondents were required tc take steps within 5 years from the date
' >\
of coming into force of the said notification. Even after the Circular was
isrned by the appellant, the respondents did not approach the appellant
within reasonable time. The respondents had sought alteration on the basis
of the certificates which did not provide irrefutable proof as regards their
correct cases of birth. Without deciding all the these issues it was not
B
proper to give the impugned directions. The request for referring the
respondents to the medical board was refused by the appellant. That prayer
• was also rejected by the learned Single Judge. Whether that should have
been done or not is itself in issue in the appeals. The impugned directions
given at an interlocutory stage were very likely to cause serious prejudice c
to the appellants case. Therefore, these appeals are allowed and the
impugned order dated 10th October. 1995 passed in writ Appeal Nos. 1024,
1025 and 1026 of 1995 is set aside. No order as to costs.

R.A. Appeals allowed.