M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED vs. SHYAM KISHORE SINGH

                  REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    CIVIL APPEAL NO.     1009       OF 2020    (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20627 of 2019) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors.               .…Appellant(s) Versus Shyam Kishore Singh           ….  Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna,J.                 Leave granted.      2. The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No.115 of 2018.  Through the said order the Division Bench though has modified the judgment and order dated 13.10.2017 of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2020.02.05 17:12:53 IST Reason: the learned Single Judge insofar as the extent of relief Page 1 of 16 granted, the contention of the respondent herein relating to the change of date of birth in the service records is accepted   and   a   direction   has   been   issued   to   the appellants to pay the sum equivalent   to salary of one year for the period between the April,   2010 to March, 2011.   The appellants thus being aggrieved are before this Court in this appeal. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent herein was appointed as a trainee in the appellants company.   He was allotted Personnel No. 00473470 and joined service as Trainee Dozer Operator with effect from 27.02.1982. Though the respondent claims that he had declared his date   of   birth   as   20.01.1955   in   terms   of   the   entry contained in his matriculation certificate the fact remains that his date of birth entered in the service record was 04.03.1950 and had remained so from the date of his appointment   on   27.02.1982   till   his   retirement   on 31.03.2010.     In   the   year   1998   the   respondent   has submitted the Provident Fund Nomination Form wherein he has indicted the details of his family and shown his Page 2 of 16 wife   as   his   nominee.   In   the   relevant   Form   also,   the respondent had indicated his date of birth as 04.03.1950. The respondent thus having continued in service till the age   of   superannuation   had   retired   from   service   on 31.03.2010.   Just prior to his retirement, in the year 2009, a representation had been made by the respondent seeking change of the date of birth entered in the records, which was declined by the appellants.   The respondent not having agitated the matter further at that point of time and having retired on 31.03.2010 has after the lapse of four years filed the W.P.(S) No.6172/2014 before the High   Court   of   Jharkhand   at   Ranchi.     The   appellants herein having appeared, filed their objection statement. The learned Single Judge on taking into consideration the nature of the claim put forth was of the view that when the respondent raised the issue regarding correction of the date of birth in the year 2009 the appellants secured verification   of   the   date   of     birth   claimed   by   the respondent from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.  On verification it was confirmed that the date of Page 3 of 16 birth in the school records was 20.01.1955.   The said verification made by the appellants herein has been held against them   by   the learned  Single  Judge   and  it  was observed that if the date 04.03.1950 as entered by the respondent in the service records was correct, there was no occasion for the appellants to verify the same from Bihar School Examination Board.   In that circumstance the learned Single Judge being of the opinion that the respondent had passed the matriculation prior to joining the services and in that circumstance the entry of date of birth   in   the   matriculation   certificate   being   20.01.1955 even   before   joining   the   service,   has   accepted   the contention   put   forth   by   the   respondent   and   in   that background arrived at the conclusion that the appellants are to be directed to make appropriate corrections and pass consequential orders. 4. The Division Bench has in fact referred to the said reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge relating to the   verification   made   relating   to   correctness   of   the matriculation   certificate   from   the   Bihar   School Page 4 of 16 Examination Board and in that circumstance since the learned Single Judge had also relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of [2007 (3) JLJR 726] Kamta Pandey vs. M/s BCCI & Ors.  has upheld the said reasoning assigned by the Learned Single   Judge.   However,   the   Division   Bench   had   taken note that the respondent herein had filed the writ petition four   years   after   his   retirement   for   restoration   of   his employment.   It   has   further   taken   note   that   the respondent had filled up several forms in the course of his services where the respondent had not disclosed his educational   qualification.   In   that   view,   the   Division Bench was of the opinion that the learned Single Judge had   not   properly   dealt   with   the   aspect   of   delay   in approaching the Court. In that circumstance the Division Bench had limited the attendant benefits payable to the respondent to the salary for one year between the period April, 2010 to March, 2011 as prevailing at that point. It is in that background the appellants being aggrieved both Page 5 of 16 by the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench are before this Court in this appeal. 5.  Heard Mr. K.M. Natraj leaned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, Mr. M. Shoeb Alam learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   and   perused   the appeal papers. 6. The   fact   that   the   respondent   had   joined   the services of the appellants on 01.03.1982 is the accepted position.     Though   the   respondent   relies   on   the matriculation certificate to indicate that the date of birth stated   therein   is   20.01.1955,   there   is   no   material   on record   to   indicate   that   the   said   document   had   been produced   before   the   employer   at   the   time   of   joining employment.     In   that   background,   the   service   record maintained by the appellants will disclose that the date of birth indicated in the document is 04.03.1950 which had been furnished by the respondent himself as the relevant forms under his signature contain the said date.  Though the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the High Court had noticed certain alteration of the date Page 6 of 16 of birth as indicated in Form “B” the relevance of the said document cannot be considered without reference to the other documents in the service records.    The very fact that the respondent through his representation made in the   year   2009   was   seeking   for   change   of   the   entry relating   to   date   of   birth   will   indicate   that   what   was contained   in   the   service   records   is   04.03.1950,   which was the position from 27.02.1982. 7.  In the above background it is to be noticed as to whether the consideration as made by the High Court is justified.   The learned counsel for the respondent with specific reference to para 10 in the order of the learned Single Judge referred to the aspect wherein the learned Single Judge has taken note of the representation made by the respondent in the year 2009 and the verification that was secured by the appellants from the Bihar School Examination Board.  Though such reference is made, in our opinion, the same was not appropriate in the present facts when three decades had elapsed from the date of employment.   The position is well established that if a Page 7 of 16 particular date of birth is entered in the service register, a change sought cannot be entertained at the fag end of service   after   accepting   the   same   to   be   correct   during entire service.  In the instant facts the position is that the respondent entered service on 01.03.1982.   The date of birth entered as 04.03.1950 has remained on record from the said date.  The requirement to submit the nomination form   indicating   the   particulars   of   the   family   and   the nominee   was   complied   and   it   was   submitted   by   the respondent on 25.05.1998.  In the said Nomination Form the   date   of   birth   of   the   employee   was   required   to   be mentioned,   wherein   the   respondent   in   his   own handwriting   has   indicated   the   date   of   birth   as 04.03.1950.  Apart from that fact, the learned Additional Solicitor General would also point out that since there was a change in the method of maintaining the service register, all the employees were provided an opportunity to verify and seek for change in the service record in the year 1987.  At that stage also the respondent did not seek for any change.   Therefore, in that circumstance, when Page 8 of 16 the opportunity available at the first instance in 1987 had not been availed and thereafter  on 25.05.1998 when the respondent himself in the Provident Fund Nomination Form   had   indicated   the   date   of   birth   as   04.03.1950 which corresponds to the date of birth entered in the service register as on the date of commencement of the employment,   merely   because   a   verification   was   made from the Bihar School Examination Board and even if it was   confirmed   that   the   date   of   birth   was   20.01.1955 such change at that stage was not permissible. 8. This Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable.   The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in the case of   State of Maharashtra and   (2010) Anr. vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. 14 SCC 423 wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder:  The learned counsel for the appellant has placed            “16. reliance on the judgment of this Court in  U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha   Parishad  v.  Raj   Kumar   Agnihotri  [(2005)   11   SCC Page 9 of 16 465 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 96] . In this case, this Court has considered   a   number   of   judgments   of   this   Court   and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.

 These decisions lead to a different dimension of the 19. case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the   fag   end   must   be   discouraged   by   the   court.   The relevant   portion   of   the   judgment   in  Home   Deptt. v.  R. Kirubakaran  [1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (1994) 26 ATC 828] reads as under: (SCC pp. 158­ 59, para 7) “ 7 . An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service].   It   need   not   be   pointed   out   that   any   such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant   concerned   has   a   chain  reaction,   inasmuch   as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction   of   the   date   of   birth,   the   officer   concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotion forever. … According   to   us,   this   is   an   important   aspect,   which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before   any   such   direction   is   issued,   the   court   or   the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice   to   the   person   concerned   and   his   claim   for Page 10 of 16 correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. … the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording  of his date of birth, in his service book.” 9.     This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is   erroneous,   the   correction   cannot   be   claimed   as   a

hereunder; “8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that 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 of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep Page 11 of 16 over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ). 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex 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. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code 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.” 10. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also relied   upon   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of Factory   Manager   Kirloskar     Brothers   Ltd.   vs. Laxman   in   SLP   (C)   Nos.2592­2593/2018   dated 25.04.2019   wherein   the   belated   claim   was   not entertained.     Further   reliance   is   also   placed   on   the decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   M/s   Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram Samugh Yadav & Ors. in C.A.No.7724 of 2011 dated 27.05.2019 wherein this Court has held as hereunder: Page 12 of 16 “ Nothing is on record that in the year 1987 when the opportunity was given to Respondent No.1, to raise any issue/dispute   regarding   the   service   record   more particularly his date of birth in the service record, no such issue/dispute was raised. Only one year prior to his   superannuation,   Respondent   No.1   raised   the dispute which can be said to be belated dispute and therefore,   the   learned   Single   Judge   as   well   as   the employer was justified in refusing to accept such an issue. The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has, therefore,   committed   a   grave   error   in   directing   the appellant to correct the date of birth of Respondent No.1 in the service record after number of years and that too when the issue was raised only one year prior to his superannuation and as observed hereinabove no dispute was raised earlier.” 11.         The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has relied upon the decision of this Court relating the very same employer namely, the appellants herein in the case of  Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. vs. Chhota Birasa Uranw    (2014) 12 SCC 570 wherein this Court with reference to the earlier decisions of this Court has upheld the order of the High Court wherein a direction had been issued to effect the change in the date of birth.  Having perused the same we are of the opinion that the said decision cannot render assistance to the respondent herein.  This is for the reason that in the said case it was taken note that in 1987 on implementation Page 13 of 16 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (iii) was put into operation   for   stabilising   the   service   records   of   the employees and all its employees were provided a chance to identify and rectify the discrepancies in the service records by providing them a nomination form containing details   of   their   service   records.   In   the   cited   case   the respondent   (employee)   therein   had   noticed   the inconsistencies in the records regarding his date of birth, date   of   appointment,   father’s   name   and   permanent address and availed the opportunity to seek correction. Though he had sought for the correction of the errors, the other discrepancies were set right but the date of birth and   the   date   of   appointment   had   however   remained unchanged and it is in that view the employee had again raised   a   dispute   regarding   the   same   and   the   judicial remedy was sought wherein the benefit was extended to him.  12.  On the other hand, in the instant case, as on the date of joining and as also in the year 1987 when the respondent had an opportunity to fill up the Nomination Page 14 of 16 Form and rectify the defect if any, he had indicated the date of birth as 04.03.1950 and had further reiterated the same when Provident Fund  Nomination Form was filled in 1998.  It is only after more than 30 years from the date of his joining service, for the first time in the year 2009 he had made the representation.  Further the respondent did not avail the judicial remedy immediately thereafter,   before   retirement.     Instead,   the   respondent retired from service on 31.03.2010 and even thereafter the writ petition was filed only in the year 2014, after four years   from   the   date   of   his   retirement.     In   that circumstance, the indulgence shown to the respondent by the High Court was not justified.  13.    Hence, the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.6172 of 2014 and the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.115 of 2018 are not sustainable.  14. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. Pending applications if any, shall also stand disposed of. Page 15 of 16 ………….…………….J. (R. BANUMATHI)           .……………………….J.                                             (A.S. BOPANNA) New Delhi, February 05, 2020 Page 16 of 16