STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus S.L. CHADHA

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 216 · Decided: 09-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
S.L. CHADHA 
FEBRUARY 9, 2004 
B 
[DORAi SWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Service Law-Date of birth-Change in-Permissibility of-Delay in 
applying for-Effect of-Employee applying for change in date of birth several 
C years after appointment-No contemporaneous document produced-Held, 
change not permissible. 
The respondent joined service under the State Government in 1983. 
His date of birth as per the Higher Secondary certificate was 19.6.1944 
and in his service book too the date of birth was recorded as 19.6.1944. 
D In 1995 he applied for change of his date of birth from 19.6.1944 to 
13.12.1945 pursuant to a notification issued in 1994 by the State 
Government permitting its employees to do so. The Deputy Commissioner 
allowed the claim of the respondent for change in date of birth but the 
State Government rejected his claim. The respondent filed writ petition 
E 
F 
before the High Court, which was allowed by the High Court. 
The State Government filed an appeal before the Court. Allowing 
the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. An application for correction of the date of birth should 
not be dealt with by the Courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping in 
view only the public servant concerned. Unless a clear case on the basis 
of clinching materials, which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is 
made out by the respondent 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 of materials 
which make such claim only plausible. Before any s_uch direction is issued 
G or declaration made, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that 
there has been real injustice to the person co!'cerned and his claim for 
correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure 
pr.escribed and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or 
order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such 
application has to be filed, then such application must the within at least 
H 
· 
216 
., 
-
ST ATE v. S. L. CHAD HA 
217 
a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support A 
of such claim which may a'!'ount to irrefutable proof relating to his date 
of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant 
to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service book. 
1222-B-D-FI 
State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka, 1197013 SCC 624; Government B 
of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagreev Sanna, 11990] 2 SCC 682; Executif1e 
Engineer Bhadrak (R & B) Division, Orissa and Ors., 119931 Supp. I SCC 
763 and Union of India v. Harnam Singh, 1J99312 SCC 162, referred to. 
1.2. The Court or the Tribunal must be slow in granting an interim 
relief or continua.tion in service, unless prima facie evidence of C 
unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant 
succeeds, he can always be compensated but if he fails, he would have 
enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused 
injustice to his immediate junior. (222-H; 223-A( 
The SecretGJy and Commissioner, Home Department and Ors. v. R. D 
Kirubakaran, JT (1993) 5 SC 404; State of Tamil Nadu v. T. V. Venugopalan, 
( 19941 6 SCC 302 and State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ramnath Patnaik, ( 1997( 
5 sec 181, referred to. 
2. The High Court was notjustified in interfering with the orders of 
the Government and directing correction of the date of birth in the service E 
records of the respondent as now claimed by him. No contemporaneous 
document was produced to show that the recording of date of birth to be 
19.6.1944 was wrong. Merely because in 1994 an opportunity was granted 
to the Government employees to get their date of birth corrected, that d~es 
not take away the effect of inaction and continued silence for more than 
three decades which de hors laches on his part wouid seriously reflect on F 
the bonajide nature of the claim itself. (223-G, EJ 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 854 of 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated I0.2.2003 of the Punjab and G 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2170 of 2001. 
Sarup Singh, Sr. Addi. Advocate General for State and Jatinder Kumar 
Bhatia for the Appellants. 
R.K. Chopra and Uma Datta for the Respondent. 
H 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delive·red by 
.~RIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
[2004) 2 S.C.R. 
The 

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