BURN STANDARD CO. LTD. AND ORS. versus SH. DINABANDHU MAJUMDAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 712 · Decided: 21-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BURN STANDARD CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
SH. DINABANDHU MAJUMDAR AND ANR. 
APRIL 21, 1995 
B 
[AM. AHMADI, CJ. AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Date of Birth-Correction of-Principles governing Authenticated dec-
C laration of date of birth given by employee at the time of appointment-Ac-
ceptance by employer-Entry in service record-Change of date of birth sought 
for close to the date of retirement-Rejection by employer-Writ-High 
Court-Direction to change the date of birth on the basis of duplicate admit 
card of Matric examination issued by University-Direction held unwarranted. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226. 
Writ jurisdiction--Power to enquire into disputed facts pertaining to 
date of birth of employees-Held High Court should not ordinarily entertain 
petition by an employee seeking correction of his date of birth at the fag end 
E of his career-<Jranting of interim relief-Desirability of 
Pursuant to an authenticated declaration made by Respondent-I at 
the time or his appointment an entry was made in his service record that 
his date or birth was 25.4.1931. Under the service rules Respondent-I was 
to superannuate on attaining the age or sixty years. After completing 36 
F years or service and close to the period or his retirement, he filed an 
application seeking correction or his date or birth as 7.7.1934 which was 
rejected by the appellant-employer on the ground that the date or birth 
was recorded as per respondent's own authenticated declaration and It 
constituted the sole evidence of his age in all matters relating to his service. 
Another request made by Respondent 1 to correct his date or birth on the 
G ground that at the time of his initial appointment he had declared his date 
of birth to be 7.7.1934 which was duly recorded by the then management 
and that very date or birth was mentioned in his admit card to Matricula-
tion examination issued by Calcutta University was also rejected by the 
appellant-employer. Further, by a notice the appellant-employer intimated 
H 
Respondent-I that he will be superannuated with effect from 25.4.1991 as 
712 
BURN STANDARD CO. LTD. v. D. MAJUMDAR 
713 
per the date of birth recorded in the service record. Respondent-I filed< a A 
writ petition before the Calcutta High Court for a direction to the appel-
lant not to retire him from service till he attained the superannuation age 
on the basis of his date of birth found in his Matriculation admit card i.e. 
7.7.1934. Relying on the date of birth as shown in the duplicate admit card 
of Matriculate examination, a single Judge of the High Court directed B 
correction of date of birth as sought for by respondent-I. On appeal, the 
order of single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench. Against the 
decision of the Division Bench an appeal was preferred before this Conrt. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the High Court, this Court 
C 
HELD : 1. The discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction vested in the 
High Court nnder Article 226 of the Constitntion has not been properly 
exercised by the single Judge in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the 
appellant to correct the date of birth of respondent. The Division Bench p 
of the High Court also has failed to see that the learned single Judge had 
not properly exercised his writ jurisdiction in granting relief to responc 
dent. [719-H, 720-A, BJ 
2. Extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction vested in the High Courts 
under Article 226 of the Constitntion, is not meant to make employees of E 
Government or its instrumentalities to continue in service beyond the 
period of their entitlement according to dates of birth accepted by their 
employers, placing reliance on the so called newly found material. The fact 
that an employee of Government or its instrumentality who ·will be In 
service for ever decades, with no objection whatsoever raised as to his date F 
of birth accepted by the employer as correct, when all of a sudden comes 
forward towards the fag end of his service career with a writ application 
before the High Court seeking correction of his date of birth in his Service 
Record, the very conduct of non-raising of an objection in the matter by 
the employee, should be a sufficient reason for the High Court, not to 
entertain such applications on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay and G 
laches. Therefore, ordinarily High Courts should not, in exercise of its 
discretionary writ jurisdictio

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