KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED versus T.P. NATARAJA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 21-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
v.
T.P. NATARAJA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5720 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974
– Change of date of birth – In the service records, the date of birth
of the respondent no.1 was 04.01.1960 – The respondent no.1
sought to change it to 24.01.1961 – Pursuant thereto, respondent
no.1 filed suit and it was opposed by the appellant-corporation
relying on the 1974 Act and resolution dated 17.05.1991 – The
trial Court dismissed the suit – However, the High Court allowed
the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 and observed that it was
highly impossible that respondent no.1 would have availed the
remedy within three years from the date of the joining of the service
or within one year from the date of commencement of Act, 1974 –
Held: The view of the High Court cannot be accepted – Respondent
no.1, being the employee of the corporation, was supposed to know
the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the
corporation – Ignorance of law cannot be an excuse to get out of
the applicability of the statutory provisions – Respondent No.1-
employee also was not entitled to any relief or change of date of
birth on the ground of delay and laches as the request for change
of date of birth was made after lapse of 24 years since he joined
the service.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant corporation adopted the provisions
of the Act, 1974 by resolution dated 17.05.1991. Therefore, as
such the request for change of date of birth as per the Act, 1974
as adopted by the appellant-corporation in the year 1991 was
required to be made by respondent No.1 – employee within a
period of one year from 17.05.1991 being the employee of the
appellant-corporation. However, respondent No.1-employee
made the request for change of date of birth vide notice dated
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 634
634
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
635
23.06.2007 i.e. 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 enactment (Act,  1974)  by  the  appellant-corporation.
The High Court in the impugned judgment and order has observed
that nothing is on record that resolution dated 17.05.1991
adopting the Act, 1974 was brought to the notice of the employee
and that therefore respondent No.1-employee might not be aware
of the applicability of the Act, 1974. Aforesaid cannot be accepted.
Being the employee of the corporation, he was supposed to know
the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the
corporation. Ignorance of law cannot be an excuse to get out of
the applicability of the statutory provisions. [Para 8][642-B-E]
2. Even otherwise and assuming that the reasoning given
by the High Court for the sake of convenience is accepted in that
case also even respondent No.1-employee was not entitled to
any relief or change of date of birth on the ground of delay and
laches as the request for change of date of birth was made after
lapse of 24 years since he joined the service. At this stage, few
decisions of this court on the issue of correction of the date of
birth are required to be referred to. [Para 9][642-F-G]
3. Considering the various decisions of this Court the law
on change of date of birth can be summarized as under: (i)
application for change of date of birth can only be as per the
relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii) even if there is
cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) 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. [Para 10][647-A-C]
4. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this court in
various decisions, the application of the respondent for change
of date of birth was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay
and laches also and therefore as such respondent employee was
not entitled to the decree of declaration and therefore the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable and not tenable at law. [Para 11][647-C-D]
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v. T.P. NATARAJA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
Home Deptt. v. R.Kirubakaran, (1994) 1 Suppl. SCC
155 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 376; State of M.P. v. Pre

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