REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2331 OF 2004

STATE OF M.P & ORS. — APPELLANTS

VERSUS

PREMLAL SHRIVAS — RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

D.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  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 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:  

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. This position continued till 1990, when  

he  made  a  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 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 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  his  maternal  grandfather,  

accompanying  the  respondent  at  the  time  of  enrolment,  the  same  

carries his finger and thumb impressions and was duly attested by the  

2

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.  

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 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 a writ petition  

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  unrepresented.  

Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

7. The  learned  counsel,  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellants,  

strenuously urged that the High Court ought not to have directed a  

change in date of birth of the respondent, on his request, made after a  

3

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 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 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 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.  

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  

1 (2010) 6 SCC 482

4

Tribunal  has  to  be  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. 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  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  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 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 Singh2).  

10. In  Secretary And Commissioner, Home Department & Ors.  Vs.  R.  

Kirubakaran3, indicating  the  factors  relevant  in  disposal  of  an  

2 (1993) 2 SCC 162 3 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155

5

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 :

“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 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 are  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, 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 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 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 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  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 such claim, which may amount to irrefutable  proof  relating  to  his  date  of  birth.   Whenever  any  such  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  

6

public servants to approach the court or the tribunal on the  eve of  their  retirement,  questioning the  correctness  of  the  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 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 injustice to his immediate junior.”

(Emphasis supplied)

11. In  State  of  U.P.  &  Anr.  Vs.  Shiv  Narain  Upadhyaya4,  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 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 respondent was aware ever since 1965 that his  

date of birth 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,  4 (2005) 6 SCC 49

7

1965  was  mentioned  to  be  23  years  and  his  father’s  name  was  

recorded  as  Gayadin;  and  in  his  descriptive  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  Ikrarnama”  was  filled  up  by  the  respondent  

himself with the very same particulars.  Therefore, it 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.   Be that  as  it  may,  in  our opinion,  the delay  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 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. Financial Code does not prescribe the  

8

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.  

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  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  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 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 book at the time of  

entry  into  service  is  conclusive  and  binding  on  the  government  

servant.  It is clear 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  correcting  his  age  provided  that  

9

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  

clerical error or mistake would fall within the ambit of the said rule  

which is caused due to the 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.  

15. In  Commissioner  of  Police,  Bombay  and  Anr.  Vs. Bhagwan  V.   

Lahane5,  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 date of birth was made due to  

negligence of  some other  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 or any  

other  document  at  the  time of  his  employment  but,  by  mistake  or  

oversight a different date has been recorded.

5 (1997) 1 SCC 247 6 (1997) 4 SCC 647

10

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 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 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  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.K. JAIN, J.)  

                         ..….………………………………....          (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.)

NEW DELHI;   SEPTEMBER 19, 2011.

RS

11

12