UNION OF INDIA versus HARNAM SINGH

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 862 · Decided: 09-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Leave granted

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
HARNAM SINGH 
FEBRUARY 9, 1993 
[L.M. SHARMA, CJ AND DR. A.S. ANAND, J.] 
Civil Services 
Fundamental Rules : 
F.R. 56 Note S(a) & MH. A. Notification dated November 30, 
1979-<Jovemment Servant-Date of birth-Alteration in service record--Re-
quest fo,.._.cw/ten to be made. 
The respondent in the appeal joined Government Service in the 
D Ministry of Finance in a Class N post as Peon on 22nd February, 1956. 
At the time of entry his service book was prepared and the date of birth 
was recorded as 20th May, 1934 and since he failed in the matriculation 
examination against the column of educational qualification 'matric 
failed' was recorded. The respondent later on again appeared in the 
E matriculation examination, passed the said examination in May, 1956, was 
appointed as L.D.C. ·in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 9th May, 1957 and 
in his service book an entry was made showing his educational qualifica· 
tion as 'Matric' underneath the earlier entry 'matric failed' and this 
changed entry was signed by the Section Officer of the Ministry of Home 
Affairs on 7th September, 1957. Though the date of birth of the respondent 
F as recorded in the matriculation certificate was 7 .4.1938, while amending 
the entry about his educational qualification, the entry relating to his date 
of birth was not altered to correspond to the date given in the matricula· 
tion certificate and continued to be recorded as 20th May, 1934. The 
respondent W-ds later transferred to the Ministry of Human Resources 
G Development and ou being notified about his date of superannuation as 
31.5.1992, he realised that he was being retired on the basis of bis date of 
birth as originally recorded in the service record as 20.5.1934 ignoring the 
date of birth as reflected in the matriculation certificate. 
In view 111' the aforesaid position the respondent made a repre· 
H sentation in Se1•t•mber, 1991 for alteration of his date of brith but the 
862 
~·\ 
, 
r 
U.0.1. v. HARNAM SINGH 
863 
same was rejected on 4.12.1991. He submitted another representation on A 
3.1.1992 for correction on the basis of the date of bi.rth as recorded in the 
matricnlation certificate but this request was also turned down by the 
appellant in view of the Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. dated 29,1.1992. 
Yet another representation dated 26th March, 1992 was submitted by the 
respondent wherein he had drawn the attention of the Department to the 
order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the 
case of Darshan Singh v. Union of India, wherein the Tribunal had directed 
that the date of birth should be corrected on the basis of the matriculation 
certificate. This representation was also rejected by the appellant on 
22.4.1992 •. 
·Being aggrieved the respondent challenged the aforesaid order by an . 
application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and this was con· 
tested by the appellant on various grounds including the plea of limita· 
tion. It was a!so urged that the application was barred by F.R. 56 (Note S) 
B 
c 
and the General Financial Rules, 1919 and· therefore did not merit and 
consideration. It was submitted that the respondent knew about the entry D 
of his date of birth as 20.S.1934 since he had signed his service book on 
various occasions, eversince he joined service, but his representation for 
correction of the date of birth was made only in September, 1991 much 
. 
. 
belatedly and even beyond the period of five years from the date of entry 
into Government Service as envisaged by S.O. 3997 dated 30th November, E 
1979. 
The Tribunal did not agree \Vith any of the aforesaid contentions of 
the appellant, allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed 
the appellant to correct the date of birth in the service record as per the 
date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate. 
In the appeal by the Union of India to this Court it was contented 
F 
~ 
that in view of the law laid down in Amulya Cltandrakalita v. Union of India 
& Ors., [1991] 1 SCC 181 the judgment rendered by only a single member 
of the Tribunal is invalid and, therefore, the order deserves to be set aside G 
and the case remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. The arguments 
raised before the Tribunal were also reiterated before this Court • 
• _...( 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires H 
1
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993) 1 S.C

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