Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by an employee of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. seeking correction of his date of birth in the Service and Leave Record. The employee, originally appointed by Indian Standard Wagon Co. Ltd. on 25 April 1953, had his date of birth recorded as 25 April 1931 based on his own declaration authenticated by thumb impression. In 1981, Burn Standard Co. Ltd., a Government of India undertaking, took over the company and its employees subject to existing service conditions. After more than 36 years of service, the employee applied on 1 February 1989 for correction of his date of birth to 7 July 1934, citing his Matriculation Admit Card. The employer rejected the request, stating that the recorded age, being based on the employee's declaration and authenticated by him, constituted the sole evidence of age under its Standing Orders. The employee reiterated his claim on 26 July 1989, but it was again rejected by memo dated 8 September 1989. On 5 June 1990, the employer issued a superannuation notice stating that the employee would retire on 25 April 1991. The employee then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Calcutta High Court, seeking mandamus to prevent his superannuation based on the original date and to correct the record. A single Judge allowed the writ petition on 18 April 1991, directing correction of date of birth and continuation in service, relying on an earlier Division Bench decision that service records should be corrected as per matriculation certificates. The Division Bench dismissed the employer's appeal on 14 January 1993. In the Supreme Court, the question was whether the High Court could exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction as a matter of course to direct correction of date of birth in such circumstances. The Court emphasized the importance of the date of birth entry, which is based on the employee's declaration and accepted by the employer, and held that it cannot be altered at the employee's behest after long delay, especially near retirement, unless special law or rules permit. The Court noted that the employee produced only a photocopy of a duplicate Admit Card, not a matriculation certificate, and that the single Judge failed to examine the merits of the claim. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court improperly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction and set aside the orders, thereby upholding the employer's refusal to correct the date of birth.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Correction of Date of Birth - Entry in Service and Leave Record based on employee's own declaration and authentication at the time of appointment is of utmost importance and cannot be corrected at the instance of the employee after 36 years of service, especially near retirement, unless special law or rules permit - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The respondent employee sought correction of his date of birth from 25.4.1931 to 7.7.1934 close to retirement after 36 years of service; the Supreme Court emphasized that the date of birth recorded on the employee's own declaration authenticated by thumb impression and accepted by the employer cannot be altered merely on the employee's subsequent claim; Held that the High Court should not have directed correction of the date of birth on the basis of a photocopy of a duplicate Matriculation Admit Card (Paras 6-8). B) Writ Jurisdiction - Extraordinary Discretionary Jurisdiction under Article 226 - High Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction as a matter of course to direct correction of date of birth when the employee has declared and authenticated the date at appointment and sought correction belatedly; the discretionary power must be exercised judiciously - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The single Judge failed to examine whether the correction was warranted and merely followed a previous Division Bench decision; the Supreme Court observed that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was improperly exercised when the employee's belated claim for correction was entertained; Held that a writ of mandamus should not issue to direct correction of date of birth in such circumstances (Paras 7-9). C) Evidence - Proof of Date of Birth - A photocopy of a duplicate Admit Card of Matriculation examination is not sufficient to override the service record; employer's reliance on the authenticated declaration is justified - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The employee produced only a photocopy of a duplicate Admit Card, not a Matriculation certificate; the Supreme Court noted that the High Court ignored this deficiency and directed correction relying on a supposed Matriculation certificate; Held that such evidence is inadequate to establish a different date of birth (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised as a matter of course in favour of an employee of the Government or its instrumentality to prevent retirement on superannuation according to the date of birth declared at the time of appointment and entered in the Service and Leave Record, and whether such employee can later seek correction of date of birth based on a matriculation admit card after long service.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court improperly exercised its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The order directing correction of date of birth in the Service and Leave Record and allowing continuation in service beyond superannuation was set aside. The appeal was allowed.
Law Points
- Date of birth declared and authenticated by employee at time of appointment and accepted by employer cannot be altered at employee's behest after long delay
- High Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised as a matter of course to direct correction of date of birth
- a photocopy of duplicate Matriculation Admit Card is insufficient proof to override service record
- employer's acceptance of declared date of birth is final unless special law or rules permit correction
