STATE OF HARYANA versus SATISH KUMAR MITTAL AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 1009 · Decided: 07-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 1009 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 7415 OF 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Date of birth - Correction of - Representation made 9 c 
years after joining the service - Suit filed five years thereafter 
- HELD: Application for change in date of birth causes 
prejudice and disturbance in the working of the Department 
- Courts below should not have entertained the claim beyond 
the period provided in the Rules, which in the instant case, 
0 
required the application to be made within two years -
Whether the suit was time barred or not, the claim was, in any 
case, belated - Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1994 - Delay/ 
Lach es. 
The date of birth of respondent no. 1 at the time of E 
his joining the Government service on 2.4.1992 was 
recorded in his service book as 25.3.1962 on the basis 
of his matriculation certificate. On 2.7.2001 he gave a 
representation for correction of his date of birth as 
25.11.1962. By order dated 24.9.2002 his representation 
F 
was rejected on the ground that no application for 
correction in date of birth submitted after two years from 
entry into service could be entertained. Respondent no. 
1 gave a notice u/s 80 CPC on 10.11.2005, and thereafter 
filed a suit on 16.10.2006 for a declaration that the order G 
dated 24.9.2002 was bad in law. The suit was decreed. 
The decree was affirmed by the first appellate court as 
also by the High Court in second appeal. Aggrieved, the 
State Government filed the appeal. 
1009 
H 
1010 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The relevant rule always required an 
application for correction of date of birth to be submitted 
within two years from joining the service. The amended 
8 rule of 20.12.2000 made a slight modification that the 
application filed after two years could be considered 
which will be only on the recommendation of the 
Administrative Department. This provision has now been 
removed after the rule was amended on 13.8.2001. [para 
C 12] [1017-H; 1018-A-B] 
1.2 It has been held time and again that the 
application for correction of date of birth should not be 
dealt with keeping in view only the public servant 
concerned, but it is also to be looked into from the point 
D of view of the department and the employees engaged 
therein. The other employees have expectations of 
promotion based on seniority and suddenly, if such 
change is permitted, it causes prejudice and disturbance 
in the working of the department. It is, therefore, quite 
E correct for the State to insist that such application must 
be made within the time provided in the rules, say, two 
years, as in the present case. [para 14] [1019-D-E] 
Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department vs. R. 
F Kirubakaran 1993 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 376 =1994 Suppl. (1) 
SCC 155; State of UP vs. Gulaichi 2003 (1 ) Suppl. 
SCR 762 = 2003 (6) SCC 483; State of Punjab vs. S C 
Chadha 2004 (2) SCR 216 = 2004 (3) sec 394; and State 
of Gujarat vs. Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi 2006 (3 ) 
Suppl. SCR 685 = 2006 (6) sec 537 - relied on. 
G 
H 
1.3 It is also seen that such applications are made 
very often, almost at the end of the service of the 
employee or, in any case, belatedly. In the instant case, 
the application was made after some nine years of 
STATE OF HARYANA v. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL 1011 
AND ANR. 
entering into service. Even assuming that respondent no. A 
1 came to know in June 2001 that there was an error in 
his date of birth entered in the matriculation certificate, 
as claimed by him, he took more than three years to issue 
the notice u/s 80 CPC and then to file the suit. Whether 
the suit was time barred or not, the claim was in any case B 
belated. It has to be filed within the time provided or within 
a reasonable time and it is not to be entertained merely 
on the basis of plausible material. [para 15] [1019-F-H; 
1020-A] 
State of UP vs. Shiv Narayan Upadhyay 2005 (1) Suppl. C 
SCR 847 = 2005 (6) sec 49 - relied on. 
1.4 In the circumstances, the High Court as well as 
the courts below clearly erred in entertaining the claim of 
respondent No.1 for correction In his date of birth at a D 
belated stage. The rules, in the instant case, all 
throughout required such application to be made within 
two years. Therefore, the courts clearly erred In finding 
fault with the appellant for allegedly applying the 
Notification of 

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