SHANKAR LAL versus HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. & ORS

Citation: [2022] 5 S.C.R. 704 · Decided: 20-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 704
704
SHANKAR LAL
v.
HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2858 of 2022)
April 20, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Service Law – Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Date of Birth –
Appellant-employee questioned validity of an order of respondent-
employer treating his date of birth as 21st September 1945 – 21st
September 1949 was recorded as appellant’s date of birth in his
“Service Books” whereas the statutory form, namely, “Form B”,
reflected it as 21st September 1945 – Date of birth was relevant for
computation of benefits accruing from Voluntary Retirement Scheme
(VRS), for which appellant applied and was granted – Appellant’s
stand was that his date of birth was 21st September, 1949 and thus,
his financial benefits from VRS should have been higher – Contention
of respondent-employer that in service books there was error in
recording the age of appellant, which had been subsequently
corrected – Writ jurisdiction of High Court invoked by appellant
was unsuccessful – On appeal, held: This is a case where respondent-
employer altered the records at the end of the career of appellant to
his detriment on taking unilateral decision that the date of birth
specified in appellant’s service book was erroneous, relying on a
date disclosed in a statutory form – Version of respondent-employer
that service book recordal was a mistake cannot be accepted –
Respondent, a public sector unit is expected to act with certain
element of responsibility in maintaining the service records of their
workmen and to ensure uniformity in particulars concerning
individual employees – There is no explanation as to how this mistake
occurred and how pay slips continued to be issued carrying the
mistaken date of birth for a long time – Further, appellant’s complaint
over the dispute was not belated so as to non-suit him on this count
alone – VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of
property to the employee once application is accepted – Action of
respondent-employer lacked in authority of law on two counts –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
705
First, it failed for not adhering to the principles of natural justice –
The decision not to follow the service book recordal was taken
without giving an opportunity of hearing to appellant – Moreover,
since in the own records of respondent-employer two dates were
shown, under normal circumstances it would have been incumbent
on their part to undertake an exercise on application of mind to
determine in which of these two records the mistake had crept in –
Respondent-employer proceeded on basis of age of the appellant
reflected in his service book during the latter’s service tenure and
cannot be permitted to fall back on Form “B” which would curtail
the VRS benefit of the appellant – Respondents directed to extend
benefits of VRS to appellant treating his date of birth as 21st
September 1949.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.The authorities proceeded in this matter in a
rather mechanical manner and embarked on a unilateral exercise
of correcting the age entry in the service book on their perception
that an error was being corrected. This exercise was conducted
without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and at
the fag end of his service tenure. [Para 12][715-C-D]
2.1. One of the factors that weighed with the High Court
was that there was no challenge to entry in the service book,
which should have been done within five years as per the DPE
guidelines. This reasoning cannot be accepted as the service book
contained 21st September 1949 as his date of birth and this was
prepared in 1975. Thus, no occasion arose for approaching the
employer for making any correction in the service book till 2002.
[Para 15][716-C-D]
2.2. Though in the Form “B”, the appellant’s age in 1971
was given as 26 years (the date of birth shown as 21st September
1945), in the subsequent documents the date appearing in service
book had been reflected and it was the date reflected in the service
book which formed the basis of the pay-slips as also the estimate
statement of the appellant’s voluntary retirement benefits. In such
circumstances, the appellant’s failure to seek correction in the
Form “B” register could be condoned. [Para 17][717-B-C]
SHANKAR LAL v. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
3. The employer has taken a stand that the date of birth
recorded of t

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