Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a belated claim to change an employee’s recorded birth date. The employee had repeatedly supplied the existing date, failed to use an earlier opportunity for correction, represented only near retirement and sought judicial relief four years after retiring. Later verification of a different matriculation-record date did not justify correction in these circumstances or sustain the High Court’s award of one year’s salary.
Issues
- Whether verification of the matriculation certificate justified changing the service-record birth date despite repeated acceptance and substantial delay.
Held
- No material showed that the matriculation certificate had been produced on joining. The service date matched the employee’s signed records and later provident-fund nomination, and he had not used the earlier opportunity to correct discrepancies. Verification of the school entry decades later did not itself justify changing the accepted service date. (¶¶ 6, 7, 12)
- Correction at the end of service is not a matter of right even where supporting evidence exists. Courts must consider timely compliance with the prescribed process, conclusive proof, delay and effects on others; absence of a stated deadline does not excuse an unreasonable unexplained delay. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- The favourable comparator decision involved an employee who had sought correction at the designated opportunity and continued pursuing unresolved errors. Here the first representation came near retirement and the writ petition four years after retirement, making that precedent distinguishable. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
Result
Employer’s appeal allowed; Single Judge and Division Bench orders granting birth-date correction and consequential relief set aside. No order as to costs; pending applications disposed of.