BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ORS. versus SHYAM KISHORE SINGH

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 05-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
597
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 597
597
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ORS.
v.
SHYAM KISHORE SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 1009 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 05, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Respondent was appointed as trainee in
appellant’s company – His date of birth in service record was
04.03.1950 – However, he claims that he had declared his date of
birth as 20.01.1955 in terms of entry contained in his matriculation
certificate – In 2009, just prior to his retirement he sought change
of date of birth in the records – Declined by the appellants –
Respondent retired on 31.03.2010 and after lapse of four years
from the retirement, he filed writ petition before High Court – High
Court directed the appellants to make appropriate corrections and
pass consequential orders – Division Bench limited the attendant
benefits payable to the respondent – Held: If a particular date of
birth is entered in the service register, a change sought cannot be
entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be
correct during entire service – In the instant case, as on the date of
joining in 1982 and as also in 1987 when the respondent had an
opportunity to fill up the Nomination Form and rectify the defect if
any, he had indicated the date of birth as 04.03.1950 – He reiterated
the same when Provident Fund Nomination Form was filled in 1998
which corresponds to the date of birth entered in the service register
as on the date of commencement of the employment – Thus, merely
because a verification was made from the Bihar School Examination
Board and even if it was confirmed that the date of birth was
20.01.1955 such change at that stage was not permissible – It is
only after more than 30 years from the date of his joining service,
for the first time in 2009 he had made the representation –
Respondent also did not avail the judicial remedy immediately
thereafter, before retirement – Indulgence shown to the respondent
by the High Court was not justified – Impugned order set aside.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 If a particular date of birth is entered in the
service register, a change sought cannot be entertained at the
fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during
entire service. The respondent entered service on 01.03.1982.
The date of birth entered as 04.03.1950 has remained on record
from the said date. In the instant case, as on the date of joining
and as also in the year 1987 when the respondent had an
opportunity to fill up the Nomination Form and rectify the defect
if any, he had indicated the date of birth as 04.03.1950 and had
further reiterated the same when Provident Fund Nomination
Form was filled in 1998. It is only after more than 30 years from
the date of his joining service, for the first time in the year 2009
he had made the representation. Further the respondent did not
avail the judicial remedy immediately thereafter, before
retirement. Instead, the respondent retired from service on
31.03.2010 and even thereafter the writ petition was filed only in
the year 2014, after four years from the date of his retirement. In
that circumstance, the indulgence shown to the respondent by
the High Court was not justified. Hence, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.6172 of 2014 and the order
dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.115
of 2018 are not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside.
[Paras 7, 12-14][606-B-C; 606-C-E]
Kamta Pandey v. M/s BCCI & Ors. [2007] 3 JLJR 726;
State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Gorakhnath Sitaram
Kamble & Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 423 : [2010] 14 SCR
752; State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC
664 : [2011] 11 SCR 444; Factory Manager Kirloskar
Brothers Ltd. v. Laxman (2020) 3 SCC 419; M/s Eastern
Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v. Ram Samugh Yadav & Ors.
(2020) 3 SCC 421 – referred to.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. v. Chhota Birasa Uranw
(2014) 12 SCC 570 : [2014] 4 SCR 887 – distinguished.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
Case Law Reference
[2007] 3 JLJR 726
referred to
Para 4
[2010] 14 SCR 752
referred to
Para 8
[2011] 11 SCR 444
referred to
Para 9
(2020) 3 SCC 419
referred to
Para 10
(2020) 3 SCC 421
referred to
Para 10
[2014] 4 SCR 887
distinguished
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1009
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2019 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 115 of 2018.
K.M. Natraj, ASG, Parijat Kishore, Nisc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.