UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus KANTILAL HEMATRAM PANDYA

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 71 · Decided: 14-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
KANTILAL HEMATRAM PANDYA 
FEBRUARY 14, 1995 
(AS. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.) 
B 
Seryice Law : Date of Birth-Co"ection of-Where request made after 
unexplained and inordinate delUJTo be scrntinised carefully-Interference 
could be made sparingly and with circumspection-Cautious approach 
needed. 
c 
-( 
Constitution of India, 1950: Art, 141-Law laid down by Supreme 
Court-Binding on all Courts and Tribunall-Trying to get over of)jectionable 
unless distinguishing factors could be established. 
The respondent entered Railway Service on 1.7.1955 giving his date D 
of birth as 6.9.1930 which was entered in his service records. When the 
Railway Administration issued order8 for his superannuation, the respon-
dent protested claiming that his correct date of birth was 4.9.1934 and not 
6.9.1930 and he was liable to be retired only on 30th September 1992. He 
challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Quash-
E 
log the order, the Tribunal directed that either the General Manager or 
his delegate, the Chief Personnel Officer of the Railway Administration 
should inform the respondent about the documents with copies thereof on 
which reliance was placed by the Railway Administration to record his date 
of birth and give an opportunity to him to produce documents in supp9rt 
of his claim and thereafter to pass a speaking order within six months. 
F 
Accordingly, the Chief Personnel Officer held an inquiry into the 
claim of the Respondent. The Railway Administration relied upon various 
-( 
documents including the option forms dated 16.9.1960 and 20.2.1980 as 
also the Provident Fund Withdrawal Form wherein the· respondent had G 
given his date of birth as 6.9.1930. It was· noticed that the respondent did 
not avail of the opportunity given by the ·Railway Board in 1972 asking all 
the literate emplo~ to submit their representations'in case they wanted 
any correction Of'. alteration in their recorded date of birth, latest by 
31.7.1973."The respondent had made a representation for the first time on 
25.12.1985 and then on 12.3.1987 seeking alteration of his date of birth. H 
71 . 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A The respondent, However, producted copies of School Leaving Certificates 
· issued in 1988 in support of his claim. 
The Chief Personnel Officer after hearing the parties rejected the 
claim of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said decision the Respondent 
filed an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the im-
B pugned order ar.id directed the Railway Administration to alter the date of 
the birth of the respondent in his service records, from 6.9.1930 to 4.9.1934 
and to treat the respondent as if he had continued in service till 30.9.1992 
and on that basis, to give him all the consequential benefits including pay 
c 
and allowances. 
· 
In this appeal by the Union of India against Judgment of the 
Tribunal, it was claimed that the judgment of this Court in Union of India 
v. Hamam Singh, [1993) 2 sec 162 was fully attracted to the facts and 
circumstances of the case. 
D 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, this 
Court 
HELD : 1. Stale claims and belated applications for alteration of the 
date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of initial entry, made 
after unexplained and inordinate delay, on the eve of retirement, need to 
E be scrutinised carefully and interference made sparingly and with cir-
cumspection. The approach has to be cautious and not casual. [80-C] 
Union of India v. Hamam Singh, [1993) 2 sec 162, relied on. 
2.1. A perusal of the record shows that after joining the service in 
F 1955, the respondent had himself in 1960 as well as in 1980 mentioned his 
date of birth as 6.9.1930 on various documents including the Provident 
Fund Withdrawal Form dated 20.2.1980. No explanation, much less a 
satisfactory explanation, has been furnished by the respondent as to why 
he mentioned the date of birth as late as on 20.2.1980 in the Provident 
G Fund Withdrawal Form as 6.9.1930, if he was already in possession of such 
evidence which showed his date of birth as 4.9.1934. [78-F-G] 
2.2. On 25.12.1985, for the first time, there decades after the respon-
dent had entered into service, did the respondent make an application for 
correction of his date of birth without adducing any reliable documentary 
H evidence in support of its claim and without in any manner explaining as 
) 
U.

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