STATE OF M.P. & ORS. versus PREMLAL SHRIVAS

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 19-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 444 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 
v. 
PREMLAL SHRIVAS 
(Civil Appeal No. 2331 of 2004) 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 
[D.K. JAIN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Date of birth: 
c 
Correction of date of birth of a government servant 
entered in the service book at the time of entry into service -
Jurisdiction of Tribunal and Court to direct the employer to 
make such correction - Held: Court or Tribunal has to be 
circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for 
0 
correction of date of birth recorded in the service book - If a 
government servant makes a request for correction of the 
recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction 
into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his 
employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction 
E of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish 
that the recorded date of birth is erroneous - No Court/ 
Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their 
rights - Delay/laches - Jurisdiction. 
Correction of date of birth - Application for, filed by 
F respondent 25 years after his induction into service -
Rejected by employer - Tribunal upheld the decision of 
employer - High Court directed the employer to correct the 
date of birth - On appeal, held: It cannot be said that the 
decision of the Tribunal, rejecting respondent's plea that it was 
G for the first time in the year 1990 when he was promoted as 
Head Constable, that he noticed the error in the service 
record, was vitiated- Respondent was aware ever since 1965 
that his date of birth as recorded in the service book was 1st 
June, 1942 and not 30th June, 1945 - Delay of over two 
H 
444 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. PREMLAL SHRIVAS 
445 
decades in applying for the correction of date of birth was ex-
A 
facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the 
fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, 
prescribing the period within which such application could be 
filed -
There was also no substance in the plea of the 
respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code 
B 
does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application 
is to be filed, the appellants were duty bound to correct the 
clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service 
book - Rule 84 of the Code provides that the date of birth 
'recorded in the service book at the time of entry into serltice c 
is conclusive and binding on the government servant -
However, an exception was carved out in the rule, permitting 
the public servant to request later for correcting his age 
provided that incorrect recording of f)ge is on account of a 
clerical error or mistake caused due to negligence - Onus is 
0 
on the employee concerned to prove such negligence - No 
evidence placed on record by the respondent to show that the 
date of birth recorded as 1st June, 1942 was due to the 
negligence of some other person - In this fact situation, High 
Court ought not to have directed the appellants to correct the 
E 
date of birth of the respondent under Rule 84 - Delayllaches 
- Madhya Pradesh Financial Code - Rule 84. 
The respondent was appointed to the post of a police 
constable in 1965. In the service book, prepared at the 
time of his entering the service, his date of birth was 
F 
recorded as 1st June, 1942. His father's name was 
recorded as Gayadin. In 1990, he made a representation 
to the appellants seeking correction of his father's name 
and date of birth in the service record. The representation 
was rejected on the ground that the service record of the 
G 
respondent was prepared on the instructions of his 
maternal grandfather accompanying the respondent at 
the time of enrolment, the same carries his finger and 
thumb impressions and duly attested by the then 
Superintendent of Police on 7 .9.1976. Moreover at the 
H 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A time of enrolment, the respondent was subjected to a 
medical examination on 27.9.1965, when the Examining 
Medical Authority had certified his age to be 23 years. The 
respondent filed an application before the Administrative 
Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application. The 
B respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court 
which was allowed. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeal was whether the High Court was justified 
C in directing the appellant to change date of birth of the 
respondent in his service record on his re

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