2022 (1) TMI 805 - HC - Indian Laws

Prayer for a decree of declaration for declaring his correct date of birth in service record - mandatory injunction against the defendants and their officers, employees, successors, and representatives, etc., to rectify and correct date of birth in the service record - decree of damages against defendants by directing the appellant / defendant No.1 to pay ₹ 3 Lacs as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him due to gross negligence and casual approach - whether the Trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit filed by the respondent No.1 / plaintiff granting relief in his favour by declaring his date of birth as October 02, 1962? HELD THAT - The stand of the appellant / defendant No.1 is that the date of birth can be altered within five years of appointment but the said rule does not contemplate, if, an error occurs after five years how the same has to be dealt with. The appellant / defendant No.1 has relied upon the LIC, Group Insurance Policy of 1997 wherein the personal data of the employees including of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff was submitted which includes the date of birth; the seniority list issued in the year 2003 and 2010 respectively, and the salary payslips. All the documents are post 5 years of the appointment of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff and F.R. 56 also states any genuine bonafide mistake occurred in the record of the date of birth can be altered. The pages of the Service Book filed by the appellant / defendant No.1 and the respondent No.1 / plaintiff depicts the date as to when the entry of the particulars have been made in the Service Book. Though the relevant page of the Service Book at the bottom clearly states that entries on this page should be renewed / re-attested at least every five years and the signatures in volumes 11 and 12 should be dated, the date of entries / renewal or re-attested has not been mentioned. It is noted that the basis for the Trial Court to grant damages is primarily for the reason that the respondent No.1 /plaintiff was put to undue harassment by the appellant / defendant No.1, inasmuch as the appellant / defendant No.1 took 460 days to decide the representation of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff dated July 31, 2013, by rejecting it on November 03, 2014. It also kept on delaying the filing of the written statement for more than 16 months and not providing a copy of the Service Book to respondent No.1 / plaintiff. Despite respondent No.1 / plaintiff furnishing the date of birth certificate to the appellant / defendant No.1 at the time of joining showing as October 02, 1962, the officials of the appellant / defendant No.1 either made a wrong entry of the date of birth of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff or forged the same by mentioning the wrong date of birth as October 02, 1960. The Trial Court has highlighted the facts which weighed with it for awarding damages. Keeping in view the position of law as laid down by this Court, it is clear that the case of harassment of respondent No.1 / plaintiff is made out. Hence, the challenge, insofar as the grant of damages by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff cannot be faulted - Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Tampering of Service Book and Date of Birth Correction
2. Limitation Period for Correction of Date of Birth
3. Applicability of Fundamental Rule 56
4. Entitlement to Damages for Mental Agony and Harassment

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Tampering of Service Book and Date of Birth Correction:
The respondent (plaintiff) claimed that his date of birth was altered from October 02, 1962, to October 02, 1960, due to tampering by disgruntled officers during the scanning of records in 2012/2013. He noticed this discrepancy in July 2013 from his payslip and immediately filed a representation for correction, which was rejected in November 2014. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence, including his matriculation certificate and other official documents, proving his correct date of birth as October 02, 1962. The court noted that the defendant had failed to explain why the correct date of birth was not recorded despite having the matriculation certificate. Consequently, the court declared the correct date of birth as October 02, 1962, and directed the correction of the service records.

2. Limitation Period for Correction of Date of Birth:
The defendant argued that the suit was barred by the Law of Limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a three-year period from when the right to sue first accrues. The Trial Court held that the cause of action arose when the plaintiff's representation was rejected on November 03, 2014, and since the suit was filed on April 05, 2017, it was within the limitation period. The court distinguished the present case from other cited cases, noting that the plaintiff was not aware of the incorrect date of birth until he received the payslip in July 2013.

3. Applicability of Fundamental Rule 56:
The defendant contended that F.R. 56, which restricts date of birth corrections to within five years from the date of appointment, barred the plaintiff's claim. The Trial Court rejected this argument, stating that F.R. 56 did not apply as the error was due to the defendant's oversight or clerical mistake, and the plaintiff had provided the correct date of birth at the time of joining. The court emphasized that the rule did not contemplate errors occurring after five years and noted that the plaintiff had approached the court promptly after the rejection of his representation.

4. Entitlement to Damages for Mental Agony and Harassment:
The plaintiff sought damages for mental agony and harassment due to the incorrect date of birth entry. The Trial Court awarded ?1,00,000 as damages, noting the undue harassment caused by the defendant's delay in deciding the representation and the subsequent legal proceedings. The court highlighted that the plaintiff had provided his matriculation certificate at the time of joining, and the defendant's failure to record the correct date of birth led to unnecessary litigation and mental distress. The court found justifiable reasons for awarding damages, citing the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's undue harassment.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment, affirming the correction of the plaintiff's date of birth to October 02, 1962, and awarding ?1,00,000 as damages for mental agony and harassment. The appeal was dismissed, and the deposited amount was ordered to be released to the plaintiff with accrued interest.

← Previous Next →