VISAKHAPATNAM DOCK LABOUR BOARD. versus E. ATCHANNA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1126 · Decided: 01-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VISAKHAPATNAM DOCK LABOUR BOARD. 
v. 
E. ATCHANNA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY I, 1996 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law-Cizange of date of bi1th-Notification dated 30. 11.1979 
iss11ed by Govemment of India presoibing proced11re to be followed-Can-
C didates req11ired to take steps within 5 yea1' from date of coming into force 
of 1wtijiaatirm. 
The respondents entered service of the appellant as Mazdoors be-
tween 1961 and 1969. At the time of their appointments the respondents 
had not produced any proof regarding their dates of birth. Therefore, their 
D age as could be ascertained from their physical appearance, was recorded 
in their service books. As the respondents \Vere to attain the age of 
superannuation beh.\'een April and July 1995, intitnations were given to 
them individually regarding the dates of their retirement. The respondents 
made representations, to the appellant to rectity their dates of birth on the 
E 
basis of certificates issued by Panchayat authorities "ith a re<1uest to send 
them to the Medical Board for ascertainment of their age. The requests 
were rejected. The respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court, 
praying for a declaration that they were entitled to continue in service till 
they attained the age of superannuation calculated on the basis of their 
correct dates of birth. In the alternative they also prayed to refer them to 
F the Medical Board for ascertainment of their real age and continue them 
in service in accordance "1th the determination to be made by the Board. 
Dismissing the petitions, Single Judge of that High Court held that as the 
request for correction of birth was not made within 5 years from the 
notification dated 30.11.1979 issued by the Government of India, the 
G appellant was justified in not entertaining their requests and for that 
reason, prayer for referring them to the Medical Board also could not be 
granted. In "Tit appeals, the Division Bench of the High Court passed an 
interim order directing the Director, Health Services to fix a date and 
accordingly inform the appellants therein for appearance before him or a 
Board constituted by him for determination of their age by such scientific 
H tests as were available. The appellant challenged the propriety of passing 
1126 
• 
VISAKHAPATNAMDOCKLABOUR BD. v. E.ATCHANNA 
1127 
such an order at an interlocutory stage alleging that if this order was not A 
-. 
~ 
set aside it will cause serious prejudice to the case of the appellants. 
' 
.. 
) 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
. HELD : Entry of the respondents in the service was between 1961 
B 
and 1969. l\fter remaining in service for more than 25 years they applied 
for alteration of their dates of birth and that too after they received notices 
regarding their superannuation. The reason given by the respondents for 
alteration of their dates of birth was that their ages were recorded in the 
service books only on the basis of their physical appearance. That may be 
so but it was not their case that they were not recorded in their presence. C 
Merely because they are illiterate and had atlixed their thumb impression 
in the service records it is not possible to believe that they did not know 
what was recorded therein with respect to their dates of birth. Moreover, 
the appellant had issued a Circular dated 10.7.1987 and it was intimated 
to all concerned after Government of India had issued the Notif4".ation D 
dated 30.li.1979 prescribing the procedure to be followed for change of 
date of birth. The appellant is a Central Government Undertaking and 
that the said Notification which is incorporated as Note 5 to Fundamental 
Rule 56(m) applies to the respondents. Therefore, for alteration of their 
dates of birth the respondents were required to take steps within 5 years 
from the date of coming into force of the said notification. Even after the E 
Circular was issued by the appellant, the respondents did not approach 
the appellant "ithin reasonable time. The respondents had sought altera-
tion on the basis of the certificates which did not provide irrefutable proof 
as regards their correct dates of birth, without deciding all these issues ii 
was not proper to give the impugned directions. The request for referring 
F 
the respondents to the medical board was refused by the appellant. The 
prayer was also rejected by the learned Single Judge. Whether that should 
have been done or not is itself in issue in the appeals. T

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