2021 INSC 0548
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5720 OF 2021
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE              ..APPELLANT(S)
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 
VERSUS
T.P. NATARAJA & ORS.                 ..RESPONDENT(S)
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5721 OF 2021
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE              ..APPELLANT(S)
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED & ANR.
VERSUS
M.C. SUBRAMANIAM REDDY.         ..RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   11.03.2019   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Karnataka   at   Bengaluru   in   Regular   First   Appeal
(RFA) No.1674 of 2013, by which the High Court has allowed
the   said   appeal   preferred   by   respondent   No.1   herein   –
1

employee   and   has   quashed   and   set   aside   the   judgment   and
decree   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   consequently
dismissing the suit filed by respondent No.1 herein – original
plaintiff   declaring   the   date   of   birth   of   employee   24.01.1961,
the   original   defendant   –   Karnataka   Rural   Infrastructure
Development   Limited   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   original
defendant – appellant ­corporation) has preferred the present
appeal. 
2. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   05.11.2019   passed   by   the   High
Court of Karnataka at Dharwad in Writ Petition No.109447 of
2019   (S­RES),   by   which   the   High   Court   has   partly   allowed
the   said   writ   petition,   relying   upon   the   judgment   and   order
passed in RFA No.1674 of 2013 (which is the subject matter
of Civil Appeal No.5720 of 2021 arising out of SLP No.2368 of
2020)   and   has   directed   the   Karnataka   Rural   Infrastructure
Development   Limited   to   reconsider   the   decision   of   original
writ   petitioner   with   respect   to   change   of   date   of   birth,   the
original   respondent   ­   Karnataka   Rural   Infrastructure
Development   Limited   has   preferred   Civil   Appeal   No.5721   of
2021 arising out of SLP No.1062 of 2021. 
2

Civil Appeal No.5720 of 2021
3. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeal   in   nutshell   are   as
under:­
3.1 That   respondent   No.1   herein   –   original   plaintiff   was
appointed with the appellant ­ corporation in the year 1984.
In   the   service   record   his   date   of   birth   was   reflected   as
04.01.1960   as   per   SSLC   Marks   Card.   After   the   lapse   of
nearly   24   years,   respondent   no.1   herein   –   original   plaintiff
requested   for   change   of   date   of   birth   from   04.01.1960   to
24.01.1961.   That   thereafter   respondent   No.1   filed   a   suit   for
declaration before Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at
Bengalore to declare that his date of birth is 24.01.1961. The
suit was opposed by the appellant – corporation relying upon
the   Karnataka   State   Servants   (Determination   of   Age)   Act,
1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1974) and resolution
dated   17.05.1991   passed   by   the   appellant   ­   corporation
adopting   the   Karnataka   Civil   Service   Rules   and   allied   laws.
The said rule provided that the request for change of date of
birth   in   the   service   record   shall   be   made   within   a   period   of
three  years   from   the   date   of   joining  or   within   one   year   from
commencement of the Karnataka Act No.22 of 1974. The suit
3

was   also   opposed   on   the   ground   of   delay   and   laches   on   the
part   of   respondent   No.1   –   original   plaintiff   in   requesting   to
change the date of birth. Relying upon Section 5(2) of the Act,
1974   the   learned   Trial   Court   dismissed   the   suit   vide
judgment and decree dated 28.07.2013.
3.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   judgment   and
decree passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit,
respondent   No.1   –   original   plaintiff   preferred   Regular   First
Appeal   No.1674   of   2013   before   the   High   Court.   The   High
Court   by   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   dated
11.03.2019  has  allowed  the  said appeal  by  observing  that  it
was   highly   impossible   that   the   plaintiff   should   have   availed
the   remedy   within   three   years   from   the   date   of   joining   of
service   and   also   observing   that   the   resolution   dated
17.05.1991   passed   by   the   appellant   ­   corporation   adopting
the   Karnataka   Civil   Service   Rules   and   allied   laws   was   not
brought to notice of the plaintiff.
3.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   dated
11.03.2019   allowing   the   said   appeal   and   quashing   and
setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned
4

Trial Court dismissing the suit preferred by respondent No.1
herein and consequently decreeing the suit and declaring the
date   of   birth   of   respondent   No.1   –   original   plaintiff
24.01.1961   instead   of   04.01.1960   recorded   in   the   service
record,   original   defendant   –   employer   –   corporation   has
preferred the present appeal. 
4. Shri Gurudas S. Kannur, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on   behalf   of   the   appellant   –   corporation   has   vehemently
submitted   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   more
particularly when the request for change of date of birth was
made after 24 years and dehors the statutory provisions, the
High Court committed a grave error in decreeing the suit and
granting   the   declaratory   relief.   It   is   submitted   that   as
mandated by Section 5 (2) of the Act, 1974 no such alteration
to   the   date   of   birth   to   the   advantage   of   a   State   servant   be
made   unless   the   employee   has   made   an   application   for   the
purpose   within   three   years   from   the   date   on   which   his   age
and   date   of   birth   is   accepted   and   recorded   in   the   service
register  or  book  or  any  other  record  of  service  or   within   one
year   from   the   date   of   commencement   of   the   Act,   1974,
whichever is later. It is submitted that the Act, 1974 came to
5

be   adopted   by   the   appellant   –   corporation   in   the   year   1991
and   therefore   respondent   No.1   –   original   plaintiff   ought   to
have   made   the   request   for   change   of   date   of   birth   at   least
within one year from 17.05.1991 i.e. when the resolution was
passed by the appellant – corporation adopting the Act, 1974
and   allied   laws.   It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case
respondent No.1 ­ employee made the application for the first
time   vide   notice   dated   23.06.2007   i.e.   after   the   lapse   of   24
years since he joined the service and nearly after the lapse of
16  years from  the  date of  adoption  of  enactment (Act,  1974)
by the appellant – corporation. 
4.1 It is submitted that the High Court ought to have appreciated
that   the   ignorance   of   law   cannot   be   an   excuse.   It   is
submitted that being an employee in fact he was supposed to
know   the   rules   and   regulations   applicable   to   the   employees
of the corporation.
4.2 It   is   submitted   that   in   any   case,   the   High   Court   ought   to
have   non   suited   the   employee   on   the   ground   of   delay   and
laches   as   the   request   for   change   of   date   of   birth   was   made
after lapse of 16 years from the date of adoption of enactment
(Act, 1974) by appellant – corporation.
6

4.3 Relying upon the decisions of this court in the cases of Home
Deptt.   v.   R.Kirubakaran,   1994   Supp   (1)   SCC   155;   State   of
M.P.   v.   Premlal   Shrivas,   (2011)   9   SCC   664;   Life   Insurance
Corporation of India & Others v. R.Basavaraju (2016) 15 SCC
781   and   Bharat   Coking   Coal   Limited   and   Ors.   v.   Shyam
Kishore   Singh   (2020)   3   SCC   411,   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the
present appeal. 
4.4 Learned   advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   –
corporation   had   fairly   admitted   that   so   far   as   respondent
No.1 herein ­ employee is concerned, the impugned judgment
and  order  passed  by   the  High   Court  has   been  implemented.
However,   as   others   suits   are   pending,   he   has   requested   to
decide   the   question   of   law   so   that   the   impugned   judgment
and order passed by the High Court may not come in the way
of corporation. 
5. Shri   Ashok   Bannidinni,   learned   Advocate   appearing   on
behalf   of   respondent   No.1   –   original   plaintiff   has   submitted
that so far as respondent No.1 –original plaintiff is concerned
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
has   been   implemented  in   the   year   2019   and  even   thereafter
he   has   attained   the   age   of   superannuation   treating   and
7

considering  his  date   of  birth   as   24.01.1961,   nothing   further
is required to be done in the present appeal and as such the
present appeal has become infructuous so far as respondent
No.1 – original plaintiff is concerned. 
5.1 Now so far as Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2021 arising out of SLP
No.1062   of   2020   is   concerned,  it  is   submitted   that   even   the
said   appeal   has   also   become   infructuous   as   after   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   05.11.2019   passed   by
the High Court in writ petition No.109447 of 2019, by which
the High Court has directed the appellant – corporation to re­
consider   the   request   of   the   writ   petitioner   –   respondent
herein for change of date of birth in light of the judgment and
order   passed   in   RFA   No.1670   of   2013,   thereafter   the
appellant   –   corporation   reconsidered   the
application/representation of the writ petitioner – respondent
herein and his prayer for change of date of birth came to be
rejected   against   which   even   the   writ   petition   was   preferred
before the learned Single Judge and the same has also been
dismissed.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore   even   Civil   Appeal
No.   5721   of   2021   arising   out   of   SLP   No.1062   of   2020   has
become infructuous. 
8

5.2 Learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   appellant
­corporation  is not disputing the aforesaid factual  matrix .
6. Heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
appellant – corporation and respondent No.1 ­ employee.  
7. The dispute is with respect  to  change of  date of  birth  in  the
service   record .   The   employees   of   the   State   Government   for
the   determination   of  the   age   are  governed   by   the   Karnataka
State  Servant   (Determination  of  Age)  Act, 1974; Section  4  of
the   Act,   1974   provides   for   bar   of   alteration   of   age   except
under   the   Act,   1974;   Section   5   of   the   Act,   1974   provides
alteration   of   age   or   date   of   birth   of   State   servants   which
provides   that   subject   to   Sub­section   (2),   the   State
Government may, at any time, after an inquiry, alter the age
and date of birth of a State servant as recorded or deemed to
have   been   recorded   in   his   service   register   or   book   or   any
other   record   of   service.   Sub­section   (2)   of   Section   5   further
provides   that   no   such   alteration   to  the   advantage   of   a   State
servant shall be made, unless he has made an application for
the   purpose   within   three   years   from   the   date   on   which   his
age and date of birth is accepted and recorded in the service
9

register  or  book  or  any  other  record  of  service  or   within   one
year from the date of commencement of Act, 1974, whichever
is   later.   Section   6   of   the   Act,   1974   further   provides   that   no
court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any
question   which   is   required   to   be   decided   under   the   Act,
1974.   It   also   further   provides   that   no   decision   under   Act,
1974   shall   be   questioned   in   any   court   of   law.   Section   4,
Section   5   and   Section   6   which   are   relevant   for   our   purpose
are re­produced herein below: ­
4.   Bar   of   alteration   of   age   except   under   the   Act.­
Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   any   law   or   any
judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority,
no alteration of the age or date of birth of a State servant
as   accepted   and   recorded   or   deemed   to   have   been
accepted   and   recorded   in   his   service   register   or   book   or
any other record of service under section 3 shall, in so far
as   it   relates   to   his   conditions   of   service   as   such   State
servant, be made except under section 5. 
5. Alteration of age or date of birth of State servants.­
(1)   Subject   to   subsection   (2),   the   State   Government   may,
at   any   time,   after   an   inquiry,   alter   the   age   and   date   of
birth   of   a   State   servant   as   recorded   or   deemed   to   have
been recorded in his service register or book or any other
record of service: 
Provided   that   no   such   alteration   shall   be   made   if   the
age and date of birth of a State servant has been accepted
and   recorded   or   deemed   to   have   been   accepted   and
recorded   in   the   service   register   or   book   or   any   other
record of service in pursuance of a decree of a civil court
obtained   by   the   State   servant   1
  [after   he   became   such
servant] 1
 against the State Government: 
1. Inserted by Act 22 of 1977 w.e.f. 29.7.1977 
10

Provided further that no such alteration shall be made
without   giving   the   State   servant   concerned   a   reasonable
opportunity of being heard. 
(2)   No   such   alteration   to   the   advantage   of   a   State
servant shall be made unless he has made an application
for the purpose within three years from the date on which
his age and date of birth is accepted and recorded in the
service   register   or   book   or   any   other   record   of   service   or
within   one   year   from   the   date   of   commencement   of   this
Act, whichever is later.
6.   Bar   of   jurisdiction   of   courts.­   (1)   No   court   shall
have   jurisdiction   to   settle,   decide   or   deal   with   any
question which is required to be decided under this Act.
(2)   No   decision   under   this   Act   shall   be   questioned   in
any court of law.
8. So   far   as   the   appellant   corporation   is   concerned,   they
adopted   the   provisions   of   the   Act,   1974   by   resolution   dated
17.05.1991. Therefore, as such the request for change of date
of   birth   as   per   the   Act,   1974   as   adopted   by   the   appellant   –
corporation   in   the   year   1991   was   required   to   be   made   by
respondent No.1 – employee within a period of one year from
17.05.1991   being   the   employee   of   the   appellant   ­
corporation. However, respondent No.1 – employee made the
request   for   change   of   date   of   birth   vide   notice   dated
23.06.2007 i.e. after the lapse of 24 years since he joined the
service and nearly after the lapse of 16 years from the date of
adoption   of   enactment   (Act,   1974)   by   the   appellant   –
corporation.   The  High   Court   in   the  impugned   judgment   and
11

order  has observed that nothing  is on record that resolution
dated 17.05.1991 adopting the Act, 1974 was brought to the
notice  of  the   employee and   that  therefore  respondent   No.1  –
employee   might   not   be   aware   of   the   applicability   of   the   Act,
1974.   Aforesaid   cannot   be   accepted.   Being   the   employee   of
the   corporation,   he   was   supposed   to   know   the   rules   and
regulations   applicable   to   the   employees   of   the   corporation.
Ignorance   of   law   cannot   be   an   excuse   to   get   out   of   the
applicability of the statutory provisions. 
9. Even otherwise and assuming that the reasoning given by the
High   Court   for   the   sake   of   convenience   is   accepted   in   that
case   also   even   respondent   No.1   –   employee   was   not   entitled
to any relief or change of date of birth on the ground of delay
and   laches   as   the   request   for   change   of   date   of   birth   was
made   after   lapse   of   24   years   since   he   joined   the   service.   At
this   stage,   few   decisions   of   this   court   on   the   issue   of
correction of the date of birth are required to be referred to. 
9.1 In   the   case   of   Home   Deptt.   v.   R.Kirubakaran   (Supra),   it   is
observed and held as under:­
12

“7.   An   application   for   correction   of   the   date   of   birth
should   not   be   dealt   with   by   the   Tribunal   or   the   High
Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned.
It   need   not   be   pointed   out   that   any   such   direction   for
correction   of   the   date   of   birth   of   the   public   servant
concerned   has   a   chain   reaction,   inasmuch   as   others
waiting   for   years,   below   him   for   their   respective
promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to
suffer   irreparable   injury,   inasmuch   as,   because   of   the
correction   of   the   date   of   birth,   the   officer   concerned,
continues in office, in some cases for years, within which
time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting
for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever…”
9.2 In   the   case   of   State   of   M.P.   v.   Premlal   Shrivas,   (Supra)   in
paragraph 8 and 12, it is observed and held as under:­
“8.   It   needs   to   be   emphasised   that   in   matters   involving
correction   of   date   of   birth   of   a   government   servant,
particularly   on   the   eve   of   his   superannuation   or   at   the
fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be
circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction
for   correction   of   date   of   birth,   recorded   in   the   service
book   at   the   time   of   entry   into   any   government   service.
Unless   the   court   or   the   tribunal   is   fully   satisfied   on   the
basis  of  the  irrefutable  proof  relating  to  his  date  of  birth
and   that   such   a   claim   is   made   in   accordance   with   the
procedure   prescribed   or   as   per   the   consistent   procedure
adopted   by   the   department   concerned,   as   the   case   may
be,   and   a   real   injustice   has   been   caused   to   the   person
concerned,   the   court   or   the   tribunal   should   be   loath   to
issue  a   direction   for  correction   of  the   service  book.   Time
and   again   this   Court   has   expressed   the   view   that   if   a
government servant makes a request for correction of the
recorded   date   of   birth   after   lapse   of   a   long   time   of   his
induction   into   the   service,   particularly   beyond   the   time
fixed   by   his   employer,   he   cannot   claim,   as   a   matter   of
right,   the   correction   of   his   date   of   birth,   even   if   he   has
13

good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth
is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to
the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of
India   v.   Harnam   Singh   [(1993)   2   SCC   162   :   1993   SCC
(L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ).
12.   Be   that   as   it   may,   in   our   opinion,   the   delay   of   over
two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth
is   ex   facie   fatal   to   the   case   of   the   respondent,
notwithstanding   the   fact   that   there   was   no   specific   rule
or   order,   framed   or   made,   prescribing   the   period   within
which such application could be filed. It is trite that even
in   such   a   situation   such   an   application   should   be   filed
which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed
by   the   respondent   25   years   after   his   induction   into
service,   by   no   standards,   can   be   held   to   be   reasonable,
more   so   when   not   a   feeble   attempt   was   made   to   explain
the   said  delay.  There  is  also   no  substance  in  the   plea  of
the   respondent   that   since   Rule   84   of   the   M.P.   Financial
Code   does   not   prescribe   the   time­limit   within   which   an
application is to be filed, the appellants were duty­bound
to   correct   the   clerical   error   in   recording   of   his   date   of
birth in the service book.”
9.3 In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others v.
R.Basavaraju (Supra), it is observed as under:­
“5. The law with regard to correction of date of birth has
been   time   and   again   discussed   by   this   Court   and   held
that   once   the   date   of   birth   is   entered   in   the   service
record,   as   per   the   educational   certificates   and   accepted
by   the   employee,   the   same   cannot   be   changed.   Not   only
that, this Court has also held that a claim for change in
date   of   birth   cannot   be   entertained   at   the   fag   end   of
retirement”
9.4 In the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. v. Shyam
Kishore   Singh   (Supra)   of   which   one   of   us   (Justice   A.S.
14

Bopanna) was a party to the bench has observed and held in
paragraph 9 & 10 as under:­
“9.  This   Court   has   consistently   held  that   the   request   for
change   of   the   date   of   birth   in   the   service   records   at   the
fag   end   of   service   is   not   sustainable.       The   learned
Additional   Solicitor   General   has   in   that   regard   relied   on
the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr.
v.     Gorakhnath   Sitaram     Kamble     (2010)14   SCC   423
wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were
taken note and was held as hereunder:
“16.   The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   placed
reliance   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   U.P.
Madhyamik   Shiksha   Parishad   v.   Raj   Kumar   Agnihotri
[(2005) 11 SCC465: 2006 SCC (L&S) 96]. In this case,
this   Court   has   considered   a   number   of   judgments   of
this   Court   and   observed   that   the   grievance   as   to   the
date   of   birth   in   the   service   record   should   not   be
permitted at the fag end of the service career.
17.   In   another   judgment   in   State   of   Uttaranchal   v.
Pitamber Dutt Semwal [(2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC
(L&S)   106]   relief   was   denied   to   the   government
employee   on   the   ground   that   he   sought   correction   in
the   service   record   after   nearly   30   years   of   service.
While   setting   aside   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court,
this   Court   observed   that   the   High   Court   ought   not   to
have   interfered   with   the   decision   after   almost   three
decades.
19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the
case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost
of   a   large   number   of   employees,   therefore,   any
correction   at   the   fag   end   must   be   discouraged   by   the
court.   The   relevant   portion   of   the   judgment   in   Home
Deptt.v.   R.   Kirubakaran   [1994   Supp   (1)   SCC   155   :
1994   SCC   (L&S)   449   :   (1994)   26   ATC   828]   reads   as
under: (SCC pp. 158  59, para 7) 
15

“7.   An   application   for   correction   of   the   date   of
birth   [by   a   public   servant   cannot   be   entertained
at   the   fag   end   of   his   service].   It   need   not   be
pointed out that any such direction for correction
of   the   date   of   birth   of   the   public   servant
concerned   has   a   chain   reaction,   inasmuch   as
others   waiting   for   years,   below   him   for   their
respective promotions are affected in this process.
Some   are   likely   to   suffer   irreparable   injury,
inasmuch   as,   because   of   the   correction   of   the
date   of   birth,   the   officer   concerned,   continues   in
office, in some cases for years, within which time
many   officers   who   are   below   him   in   seniority
waiting   for   their   promotion,   may   lose   their
promotion   forever.   …   According   to   us,   this   is   an
important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by
the   court   or   the   tribunal   while   examining   the
grievance   of   a   public   servant   in   respect   of
correction   of  his   date  of   birth.   As  such,   unless  a
clear case on the basis of materials which can be
held   to   be   conclusive   in   nature,   is   made   out   by
the   respondent,   the   court   or   the   tribunal   should
not   issue   a   direction,   on   the   basis   of   materials
which   make   such   claim   only   plausible.   Before
any   such   direction   is   issued,   the   court   or   the
tribunal   must   be   fully   satisfied   that   there   has
been   real   injustice   to   the   person   concerned   and
his   claim   for   correction   of   date   of   birth   has   been
made   in   accordance   with   the   procedure
prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule
or order. … the onus is on the applicant to prove
the   wrong   recording   of   his   date   of   birth,   in   his
service book.”
“10.           This Court in fact has also held that even if there
is   good   evidence   to   establish   that   the   recorded   date   of
birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a
matter of right. In that regard, in   State of M.P. vs. Premlal
Shrivas , (Supra) it is held as hereunder:­
16

“8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving
correction   of   date   of   birth   of   a   government   servant,
particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the
fag   end   of   his   career,   the   court   or  the   tribunal   has   to
be   circumspect,   cautious   and   careful   while   issuing
direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the
service  book  at   the   time   of  entry   into  any   government
service.   Unless   the   court   or   the   tribunal   is   fully
satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to
his   date   of   birth   and   that   such   a   claim   is   made   in
accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the
consistent   procedure   adopted   by   the   department
concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has
been caused to the person concerned, the court or the
tribunal   should   be   loath   to   issue   a   direction   for
correction   of   the   service   book.   Time   and   again   this
Court   has   expressed   the   view   that   if   a   government
servant makes a request for correction of the recorded
date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction
into   the   service,   particularly   beyond   the   time   fixed   by
his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the
correction   of   his   date   of   birth,   even   if   he   has   good
evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is
clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to
the aid of those who sleepover their rights” (see Union
of   India   v.   Harnam   Singh   [(1993)   2   SCC   162   :   1993
SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ). 
12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over
two   decades   in   applying   for   the   correction   of   date   of
birth   is   ex   facie   fatal   to   the   case   of   the   respondent,
notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule
or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within
which   such   application   could   be   filed.   It   is   trite   that
even in such a situation such an application should be
filed   which   can   be   held   to   be   reasonable.   The
application   filed   by   the   respondent   25   years   after   his
induction into service, by no standards, can be held to
17

be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was
made   to   explain   the   said   delay.   There   is   also   no
substance   in   the   plea   of   the   respondent   that   since
Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe
the   time­limit   within   which   an   application   is   to   be
filed,   the   appellants   were   duty­bound   to   correct   the
clerical   error   in   recording   of   his   date   of   birth   in   the
service book.”
10. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law
on change of date of birth can be summarized as under:
(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as
per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be
claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) application   can   be   rejected   on   the   ground   of   delay
and   latches   also   more   particularly   when   it   is   made
at the fag end of service and/or when the employee
is   about   to   retire   on   attaining   the   age   of
superannuation. 
11. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this court in the
aforesaid decisions, the application of the respondent for
change   of   date   of   birth   was   liable   to   be   rejected   on   the
18

ground   of   delay   and   laches   also   and   therefore   as   such
respondent   employee   was   not   entitled   to   the   decree   of
declaration   and   therefore   the   impugned   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and not
tenable at law. 
12. However,   considering   the   fact   that   when   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   has   been
implemented   and   respondent   No.1   has   retired   thereafter
considering his date of birth as 24.01.1961, it is observed
that   the   present   judgment   and   order   shall   not   affect
respondent   No.1   –   employee   and   we   decide   the   question
of   law   in   terms   of   the   above   in   favour   of   the   appellant   –
corporation.   With   this   Civil   Appeal   No.   5720   of   2021
stands disposed of. 
13. So far as the Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2021 arising out of
the   SLP   No.1062   of   2020   is   concerned,   it   is   true   that
while passing the impugned judgment and order the High
Court   heavily   relied   upon   the   judgment   in   RFA   No.1674
of   2013   (subject   matter   of   Civil   No.5720   of   2021)   which
also   is   not   sustainable   in   law   as   observed   hereinabove.
19

However   considering   the   fact   that   thereafter   after   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   05.11.2019   passed
by   the   High   Court   in   W.P.   No.109447   of   2019   directing
the   appellant   –   corporation   to   consider   the   case   of   the
original writ petitioner – respondent herein in light of the
decision in the case of RFA No.1674 of 2013, the case of
the   respondent   came   to   be   reconsidered   and   his   prayer
for   change   of   date   of   birth   came   to   be   rejected   on   the
ground   of   delay   and   laches   and   even   thereafter   also   the
fresh   decision   was   challenged   before   the   learned   Single
Judge   and   the   learned   Single   Judge   has   also   dismissed
the   subsequent   writ   petition.   Therefore,  no  further   order
is   required   to   be   passed   in   the   present   appeal   and   is
accordingly   disposed   of.   However,   question   of   law   is
decided   in   favour   of   the   appellant   –   corporation   as
observed hereinabove. 
…………………………………J.
       (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
             (A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi, 
September 21, 2021
20