Case Note & Summary
The petitioner joined government service as a lecturer through MPSC in 1984. His service book, initially held by the Accountant General, was transferred to the parent department in 1991. Around that time, he discovered that his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 1st March 1957 instead of his actual date 16th January 1958. He promptly applied for correction on 4th February 1993, providing documentary evidence such as school leaving certificate, SSC certificate, PAN card, driving license, insurance policies, and seniority lists that consistently showed 16th January 1958. The government did not act on his representation for years. In 2011, his application was rejected on the ground that it was not made within five years of entering service, as required by Rule 2(a)(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, as amended. The petitioner challenged the rejection before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which remanded the matter. Even after a High Court direction to decide afresh, the government repeatedly rejected the application citing limitation. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus to correct his date of birth and prevent his premature retirement based on the erroneous date. The High Court observed that the petitioner had applied promptly after discovering the mistake in 1993 and that there was overwhelming documentary evidence proving 16th January 1958 as his correct date. It held that rejection on limitation was unjust and directed the authorities to record the correct date, setting aside all rejection orders and making the interim stay against retirement absolute. The court emphasized that merely citing limitation when the employee had acted in time upon discovery would cause grave injustice.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Correction of Date of Birth in Service Record - Limitation Period - Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Rule 2(a)(1) as amended by Maharashtra Amendment No.MCS/1007/CR/7/ACR 61, dated 24-12-2008 - The petitioner, a government lecturer, discovered a wrong date of birth entry in his service book after records were transferred to the department in 1991 and applied for correction in 1993. The government rejected the application on the ground that it was not filed within five years of entry into service. The court held that the petitioner had applied promptly upon discovering the mistake and had overwhelming documentary evidence, so rejection on limitation was unjust. Held, the correct date of birth must be recorded and the petitioner not retired on the basis of the erroneous entry (Paras 17-21). B) Service Law - Date of Birth Correction - Documentary Evidence - General Principles of Service Law - The court held that consistent documentary evidence from pre-service records (school leaving certificate, SSC certificate, PAN card, driving license, insurance policies) and official seniority lists must be given precedence over a mistaken entry in the service book, especially when the mistake is clerical and the employee applied promptly after discovery (Paras 18-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the government's rejection of the petitioner's application for correction of date of birth on the ground of limitation was justified, given the documentary evidence and prompt application after discovery of mistake
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders dated 20-10-2011, 24-11-2011, 10-12-2013, and 16-12-2015 rejecting the petitioner's application, and directed the respondents to record his correct date of birth as 16th January 1958 in the service book. The interim order preventing retirement was made absolute.
Law Points
- Correction of date of birth in service record must be allowed if application made promptly after discovering error
- overwhelming documentary evidence proves correct date
- and limitation ground is not applicable when application was made within five years of entry into service or after discovery of mistake
- government cannot reject application on limitation ground if employee had no prior knowledge of the error
