Case title: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS SUNNY JOSEPH
Case no: OP (CAT) No.83 of 2024
Order on: May 23, 2024
Quorum: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WITH THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
Fact of the case:
In this case, The respondent (applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal) entered service as an Engineering Assistant on 07.11.1989. At the time of his appointment, the date of birth entered in the service records was 01.06.1964, as per the entries in his SSLC Book. The respondent later claimed his actual date of birth was 02.07.1964. This discovery was made when he obtained a copy of his birth certificate on 10.04.2007. The respondent approached the State Government for correction of the date of birth in the SSLC records, which was accepted on 27.06.2007. The correction in the SSLC Book was completed on 13.01.2012. The respondent submitted a representation to the Director of All India Radio, Vazhuthakadu on 16.07.2013, requesting correction of his date of birth in the service records. The authorities initially entertained the representation but eventually rejected the request by a series of inter-departmental communications, culminating in a rejection by the Deputy Director (Administration), India’s Public Service Broadcaster Directorate General, All India Radio, New Delhi, on 04.02.2015. The respondent’s request for replacing his Aadhar card was also rejected on 09.03.2015 due to the discrepancy in dates of birth. The respondent did not register for the biometric attendance system, leading to further directives and responses. After multiple proceedings, including the invocation of a public grievance mechanism, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed his application on 24.07.2023.
Issues framed by court:
Whether the Tribunal should entertaining the respondent’s belated claim for correction of date of birth in the service records?
Legal provisions:
Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985:
This section deals with the limitation period for filing applications before the Tribunal, setting specific timelines within which grievances must be raised.
Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules:
It prescribes the conditions under which corrections to the date of birth in service records can be made, emphasizing a five-year limitation period.
Contentions of Appellant:
The appellant argued that the respondent’s request for correction of the date of birth was highly belated. The request was made after 23.5 years of service, far exceeding the five-year limitation period prescribed by the relevant rules and the DOPT Office Memorandum No.19017/2/92-Estt(A) dated 19.05.1993. The appellant relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including State of Maharashtra and another v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Others [(2010) 14 SCC 423]. and State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas [(2011) 9 SCC 664], which established that corrections to the date of birth should not be entertained at the fag end of an employee’s career. The appellant also cited Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, emphasizing the five-year limit for correction requests. The appellant contended that the Original Application was not maintainable before the Tribunal because the cause of action arose in 2015, and the application was filed only in 2022, thus barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985.
Contentions of Respondents:
The respondent argued that he could not have approached the authorities for correction until the SSLC Book was corrected, which occurred on 13.01.2012. Therefore, his application to the authorities in 2013 was timely. The respondent highlighted the delay between 27.06.2007 (when the State Government sanctioned the correction) and 13.01.2012 (when the SSLC Book was corrected), arguing that this period should be excluded from the calculation of the limitation period. The respondent pointed to his immediate action after obtaining the corrected SSLC Book and argued that he had followed proper procedures in seeking the correction. The respondent emphasized that the change in the date of birth would only alter his retirement by 32 days, causing no significant burden to the department.
Court analysis:
The court noted the clear statutory restriction under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985, and the regulatory requirement for filing correction requests within five years of entering service. The respondent’s delay in filing the application was beyond the permissible limit. The court emphasized that the prudency of the employer in prescribing the five-year limitation for correction requests is sacrosanct and not subject to judicial review unless there is clinching proof of a genuine error. The court criticized the Tribunal for ignoring the statutory and regulatory limitations and entertaining the belated claim. The Tribunal’s decision was found to be contrary to established principles and precedents. The Kerala High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 24.07.2023 in O.A.No.469/2022. The Original Application filed by the respondent was dismissed as it was not maintainable due to the significant delay and non-compliance with the prescribed timelines. The court concluded that the respondent’s application for correction of the date of birth in the service records was not permissible due to the excessive delay and statutory prohibitions. No order as to costs was made.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
Click to view the full judgement
