The Supreme Court observed that a change in date of
The Supreme Court observed that a change in date of birth in the service record cannot be claimed as a right, even if there is cogent evidence.
Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Natarajan
The Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice AS Bopanna observed that such applications for change of date of birth can only be processed as per the relevant provisions applicable. They can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation
In this case, the employee of the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited requested for change of date of birth. He filed a suit for declaration that his date of birth is 24.01.1961. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved to which he reached the Karnataka High Court that allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
Thereafter the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (appellant) filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the High Court order. The appellant contended that 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 or book or any other record of service or within one year from the date of commencement of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 whichever is later.
The appellant submitted that the employee made the application for the first time via notice dated 23.06.2007 that is 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 the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974.
The court observed that:
- application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
- even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;
- an 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
Therefore the court held that the employee was not entitled to the decree of declaration. The court noted that the High Court judgment was implemented in this case and the employee had retired. Hence, this judgment will not affect him.
