Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between a government company and its employee regarding the correct date of birth of the employee, which was recorded as 1932 in the service records. The employee, who had previously worked for a private colliery, claimed his date of birth to be 9.2.1946 based on certificates obtained later in his career. The employer, after a medical examination, determined the employee's age to be 52 years in 1988, leading to a revised date of birth of 13.10.1936. The employee challenged this determination in the Calcutta High Court, which initially directed the employer to consider his representation for correction. However, the High Court later modified the order to allow the employee to superannuate in 2004 instead of 2006, based on the age he would have been when he joined service. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the High Court erred in interfering with the employer's authority and the established procedure for determining age. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles surrounding the correction of date of birth, emphasizing that such changes should not be made lightly, especially when they could affect the rights of other employees. The Court held that the High Court's interference was unwarranted, as the employer had followed the proper procedures and the employee had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgments, and dismissed the writ petition, denying the employee any service benefits beyond the determined date of superannuation.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Correction of Date of Birth - Authority of Employer - Article 226 of the Constitution - The High Court should not interfere with the employer's determination of an employee's date of birth when the procedure prescribed by service rules has been followed and no clear evidence of error is presented. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the employee to demonstrate the incorrectness of the recorded date of birth (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in interfering with the date of birth recorded in the service records maintained by the employer.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition. The respondent was not entitled to any service benefits beyond the determined date of superannuation, except for the salary already received.
Law Points
- Article 226
- correction of date of birth
- service records
- employer's authority
- medical board determination
- statutory certificates
- burden of proof
- interim relief
- age of superannuation
