by Divyanshi Shukla and Jay Sharma
Introduction
The Supreme Court in its recent judgement has held that application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions applicable, and even if there is cogent evidence for such purpose, then same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It was observed that an application for change of date of birth 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. In this snippet, the judgement and legal provisions have been discussed.
Facts of the case
In this case, the respondent worked for the appellant company and was appointed in 1984. The respondent’s official documentation stated that he was born on January 4, 1960. He asked for a change of date of birth to 14.01.1961, after 24 years of service. He subsequently filed a declaration action in the Trial Court, requesting that his amended date of birth be declared. The claim was rejected by this court, citing Section 5(2) of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act 1974.
The respondent, who was dissatisfied with the order, went to the High Court. The Court granted the appeal, ruling that the appellant would be unable to meet the three-year deadline, and accepting the respondent’s claim that he was unaware of the Act’s implementation. The Corporation filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, claiming that the order was unjust. It was also opposed on the ground of delay and laches.
Legal Provisions
The important provisions related to the judgement are as follows:
1. Section 4 of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 prohibits age changes unless specifically authorized by the Act.
2. Section 5(2) of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 states that no change to a State employee’s benefit may be made unless that employee applies for it within three years of when his age and date of birth are accepted and recorded in the service register or book, or any other record of services, whichever comes later.
Judgement
The Court relied on several precedents and summarized the following guidelines on the law on change of date of birth:
- In matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation, the courts has to circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service.
- Application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions applicable.
- The purpose of the provision/regulation handed down by the competent authority should be taken into consideration when applying for a change in the date of birth.
- The application of a date of birth modification cannot be asserted as a right.
- If an application is submitted near the end of the term or extremely late in the process, it may be denied under the Act.
After observing all the facts and applying the laws, it was concluded that The High Court’s decision to deny the application of the respondent for a change in date of birth because of the applicant’s delay and laches is unsustainable, and hence the challenged judgement and order are unenforceable.
Conclusion
In this judgement, the court has observed that if there is a reasonable explanation, application for a change of date of birth towards the end of an employee’s tenure should not be granted. This is because the application should be evaluated in light of the influence it will have on other employees who are in the same position as him and are awaiting a promotion. If the application is ultimately approved, it will be at the expense of a huge number of people and should be avoided. The courts should also look into whether the applicant has suffered any real harm as a result of his date of birth or not and hence decide accordingly.
Leave a Reply