Employee Can't Claim Change Of Date Of Birth As A Matter Of Right : Supreme Court

Employee Can't Claim Change Of Date Of Birth As A Matter Of Right : Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar  30 Oct 2021 9:01 PM

The Supreme Court has observed that application for change of date of birth by an employee can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable. The Court reiterated change of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna in the present matter (Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited V. T.P. Nataraja & Ors.) was considering an appeal filed by Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited ("Corporation") assailing the Karnataka High Court's order directing the Corporation to reconsider the decision of its employee with respect to change of date of birth in service records.

The Top Court while allowing the appeal observed that, "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."

Factual Background

TP Nataraja ("Respondent No 1") was appointed in 1984 with Corporation. In his service record his date of birth was reflected as January 4, 1960 as per the SSLC Marks Card. After 24 years, Nataraja requested for change of date of birth from January 4, 1960 to January 24, 1961.

Nataraja thereafter filed a suit for declaration before Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore to declare that his date of birth as January 24, 1961.

The corporation relied on the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (Act, 1974) and resolution dated May 17, 1991 by which the corporation adopted Karnataka Civil Service Rules. As per the rules request for change of date of birth in the service record could be made within a period of three years from the date of joining or within one year from commencement of the Act,1974.

The Trial Court, while relying on section 5(2) of the Act, 1974 dismissed the suit on July 28, 2013.

Aggrieved, Nataraja approached the High Court by way of Regular First Appeal. Observing that it was highly impossible for the plaintiff to avail the remedy within three years from the date of joining of service and that the resolution dated May 17, 1991 was not brought to plaintiff's notice, the High Court on March 11, 2019 allowed the appeal.

Aggrieved, the Corporation approached the Top Court.

Submissions Of Counsels

Senior Advocate Gurudas S Kannur appearing for the Corporation submitted that the High Court had committed a grave error in decreeing the suit and granting declaratory relief.

Reliance was also placed on section 5(2) of the Act, 1974 as per which no such alteration to the date of birth to the advantage of a State servant could be made unless the employee had made an application for the purpose within three years from the date on which his age and date of birth was 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 the Act, 1974, whichever was later.

It was also his contention that the High Court ought to have appreciated that the ignorance of law cannot be an excuse and that being an employee in fact he was supposed to know the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the corporation.

For allowing the present appeal assailing the High Court's order, he relied on 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.

Advocate Ashok Bannidinni appearing for Nataraja submitted that the High Court's order had been implemented in 2019 and that he had attained the age of superannuation treating and considering his date of birth January 24, 1961. Contending that there was nothing else required to be done in the present appeal, counsel submitted that the same had become infructuous.

Supreme Court's Analysis

Since the issue pertained to change of date of birth in the service record, the bench in its judgement authored by Justice MR Shah relied on Top Court's decisions on the issue of correction of the date of birth.

Relying on 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, the Top Court summarised the law on the change of date of birth 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;

(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.

Negating the respondent's contention on the aspect of employee not being aware of the applicability of the Act, 1974 bench observed that,

"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."

The Top Court also said that Nataraja 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.

"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," Court further said.

Case Title: Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja & Ors.| Civil Appeal No.5720 Of 2021

Coram: Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna

Citation : LL 2021 SC 612