STA TE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. versus SHIV NARAIN UPADHYAYA

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 28-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF UTT AR PRADESH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SHIVNARAINUPADHYAYA 
JULY 28, 2005 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDH.K. SEMA,JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Date of Birth of Public Servant in service record-Correction-claim 
of-Held: For such a claim public servant has to make out a clear case on C 
the basis of clinching materials within reasonable time as provided in the 
Rules-Court must be satisfied that there has been real injustice to the public 
servant-It has to also keep in mind the case of junior persons waiting for 
promotions-On facts, on basis of service book produced and other documents, 
date of birth of the employee is as recorded in service book, hence High D 
Cour~ erred in holding to the contrary-Furthermore, salary received by · 
employee for the period beyond the actual date of superannuation not to be 
refunded-However, it will not be reckoned towards his retrial benefit. 
In the service records the respondent-employee's date of birth was given 
as 1.9.1930. Respondent attained superannuation on 30.9.1990 having E 
completed 60 years of age. However, by mistake the respondent worked for 
three months more and was paid for it. Thereafter, order was passed and the 
respondent was directed to refund the a~10unt. Respon_dent challenged the 
order on the ground that his date' of birth-was 1.9.1939 as per the school 
records and was prematurely retired. High Court allowed the writ petition 
holding that date of birth was 1.9.1939 as the State failed to produce service F 
records. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
. HELD: 1.1. In public service with entering into the service, the date of 
superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth of G 
the employee is recorded in the relevant register or service book. This is the 
practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of 
retirement, and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service 
records. Many public servants on the eve of their retirement are challenging 
847 
H 
848 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A their date of birth in their service records. Most of the States have framed •; 
statutory rules or in absence thereof issued administrative instructions as to 
how a claim made by a public servant in respect of correction of his date of 
birth in the service record is to be dealt with and what procedure is to be 
followed. In many such rules a period has been prescribed within which 
application for correcting date of birth can be entertained. The sole object of 
B such rules is that such application should not be made or entertained after 
decades, especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. 
[851-A-E) 
1.2. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt 
C with by the Courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public 
servant concerned. 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. This is certainly an important and relevant aspect, which cannot be 
lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a 
D public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a 
clear case on the basis of clinching materials which can be held to be 
conclusive in nature, is made out by the public servant and that too within a 
reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the Court or 
the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis 
E of materials which make such claim only plausible. 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 <!r order, otherwise within a reasonable time. Whenever any such question 
arises the onus is on the applicant to produce the evidence in support of such 
F claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. In 
many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such 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 date of birth in the service 
books. By this process, even if ultimately their applicat

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