1995 (2) TMI 468 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the respondent's recorded date of birth.
2. Validity of the Tribunal's decision to alter the respondent's date of birth.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Harnam Singh.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Correctness of the Respondent's Recorded Date of Birth:
The respondent entered Railway service on 1.7.1955, declaring his date of birth as 6.9.1930, which was recorded in his service record. Based on this date, the Railway Administration ordered his retirement effective from 30th September 1988, upon reaching the age of 58. The respondent contested this, claiming his correct date of birth was 4.9.1934, thus extending his retirement to 30th September 1992. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed the Railway Administration to review the documents and provide the respondent an opportunity to present evidence. Upon review, the Chief Personnel Officer (C.P.O.) upheld the original date of birth, citing various documents where the respondent had consistently recorded 6.9.1930, including option forms and Provident Fund withdrawal forms. The respondent's claim, supported by school leaving certificates issued in 1988, was rejected due to inconsistencies and lack of timely action.

2. Validity of the Tribunal's Decision to Alter the Respondent's Date of Birth:
The Tribunal quashed the C.P.O.'s decision and directed the Railway Administration to alter the respondent's date of birth to 4.9.1934, granting him all consequential benefits. The Tribunal criticized the C.P.O. for not complying with its earlier directive correctly and found fault with the reliance on the Railway Board's 1972 letter, which set a deadline for date of birth corrections. The Tribunal referenced a Full Bench judgment stating that the 1972 letter did not have the force of law, thus allowing the respondent's late application for correction.

3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Judgment in Union of India v. Harnam Singh:
The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal failed to adhere to the Supreme Court's binding judgment in Union of India v. Harnam Singh, which emphasized the importance of timely correction requests for date of birth. The Supreme Court in Harnam Singh held that government servants must seek corrections without unreasonable delay and that the general principle of laches applies. The Tribunal acknowledged the Harnam Singh judgment but chose to consider the case on its merits, which the Supreme Court found objectionable. The Supreme Court reiterated that the law laid down in Harnam Singh was binding and applicable, emphasizing the need for timely action and the scrutiny of stale claims.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the respondent had consistently recorded his date of birth as 6.9.1930 and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delayed correction request. The Tribunal's decision to alter the date of birth was deemed erroneous, as it did not align with the principles established in Harnam Singh. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order, denying the respondent's claim for date of birth correction and the associated benefits. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's directions were invalidated.