1993 (2) TMI 324 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Correction of Date of Birth in Service Records
2. Application of Limitation Period for Correction Requests
3. Validity of Tribunal's Order Rendered by a Single Member

Summary:

1. Correction of Date of Birth in Service Records:
The respondent joined Government service in 1956 with his date of birth recorded as 20th May 1934. After passing the matriculation examination in 1956, his educational qualification was updated in the service book, but the date of birth was not altered to match the matriculation certificate, which recorded it as 7th April 1938. The respondent made several representations for correction of his date of birth, all of which were rejected. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed the correction of the date of birth based on the matriculation certificate. The Supreme Court noted that the date of birth entered in the service records is crucial as it determines the right to continue in service until the age of retirement.

2. Application of Limitation Period for Correction Requests:
The appellant argued that the respondent's request for correction was barred by limitation u/s FR 56 (Note 5) and General Financial Rules 1979, which require such requests to be made within five years of entry into service. The Tribunal held that the five-year limitation applied only to those who joined service after 1979. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the intention of the rule-making authority was to discourage stale claims and that the limitation period should apply to all government servants, including those who joined before 1979. The Court held that the respondent's application, made in 1991, was hopelessly belated and did not merit consideration.

3. Validity of Tribunal's Order Rendered by a Single Member:
The appellant contended that the Tribunal's order was invalid as it was rendered by a single member, contrary to the law laid down in Amulya Chandrakalita v. Union of India. The Supreme Court, however, chose not to remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, given that it had already examined all the facts and circumstances and provided an interpretation of Note 5 to FR 56 (m).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order directing the correction of the respondent's date of birth. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period for correction requests and discouraged the practice of seeking such corrections belatedly, especially on the eve of superannuation. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.