AP High Court Rejects Govt Employee’s Plea To Change Date Of Birth Ahead Of Superannuation, Points He Accepted Seniority Based On It
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has rejected the plea of a retired employee of the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL), who sought alteration in his Date of Birth (DOB) in the official service records, after having received all promotions and service benefits based on the same date.
In this regard, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed,
“Petitioner at the fag end of his career when his superannuation was approaching, preferred representations to the respondent authorities, by simply blaming the respondents as if his Date of Birth had been changed. But, the petitioner is not able to substantiate his assertion regarding the alleged alteration of the entry of the Date of Birth in the service Record. In the absence of the prerequisite foundational facts regarding his case, it is not apt for this Court to go into an arena which is purely a disputed question of fact, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also evident from the record that, did not raise any objection with respect to the Seniority List prepared by the respondents’ corporation even today. But for the sake of extension of his services after 28 years of service from the date of joining, he is disputing his date of birth in the service register.”
Commenting that the case comes within the ambit of doctrine of ‘Approbate and Reprobate’, the Court added,
“The petitioner himself produced his Educational Certificate issued by the concerned District Education Officer on his own volition, in which his Date of Birth is stated as 10.11.1958, which correlates with the version of the respondents Corporation. But, on the fag end of his career, he has taken the plea that is date of birth is 25.08.1961, so as to extend his service and receive its consequential benefits. Thus, the case of the petitioner directly comes under the ambit of ‘Approbate and Reprobate’, which in general words means one cannot take advantage of one part while rejecting the rest. In other words, a person cannot be allowed to have the advantage of a document while challenging the same. In such an event, the petitioner either has to affirm or disaffirm the said transaction.”
Facts:
The Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging as illegal and arbitrary a Memo dated 19.08.2016 (impugned Memo), passed by the Divisional Engineer Operations (Respondent 3), through which the petitioner— who, on the verge of his retirement then, was denied the change of his DOB.
Initially a Helper at Rural Electric Co-operative Society, Kadiri, the petitioner underwent a medical examination upon joining the APSPDCL, as a Watchman, where the Doctor issued a Physical Fitness Certificate (PFC) which stated that the petitioner’s age was 25 years, however his appearance was about 28 years. Consequently, in the certificate, his age was altered from 25.08.1961 (25 years) to 10.11.1958 (28 years). Through multiple promotions, the petitioner was ultimately promoted to the post of Lineman on 16.01.2010. He also produced a 9th class examination certificate, wherein he stated his DOB as 10.11.1958.
The petitioner submitted that, after getting to know about the alteration in DOB, he made multiple representations to Respondent 3, however, vide the impugned Memo, his claim of change in DOB was turned down. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
Submissions:
It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities, with mala fide intention, altered the petitioner’s DOB 25.08.1961 to 10.11.1958, thereby affecting the petitioner’s service benefits.
Contrary to this, the respondents averred that the petitioner, who had retired from service on 30.11.2018 (in terms of 10.11.1958) and was receiving all retirement benefits, himself had produced the PFC issued by the Civil Asst. Surgeon, Government Hospital, Hindupur, as proof of his age and the initial alteration in the DOB was made with the knowledge of the petitioner. The respondents further submitted that the petitioner, who received 3 promotions in his career in terms of 10.11.1958 as DOB, never raised an objection concerning the DOB until the fag end of his service, and was now raising concerns in order to gain undue benefit.
Thus, the Court was to determine whether the petitioner could raise concerns regarding DOB recorded in his service record at the fag end of his career.
Court’s Findings:
The Court referred to a host of cases, including Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar [(1995) 4 SCC 172], G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad and Others [(2000) 8 SCC 696], to hold that the petitioner cannot raise dispute regarding the DOB at the fag end of his career after being promoted thrice in terms of the same DOB and after receiving all the service benefits.
Additionally, the Court held,
“In respect of the alleged alteration of the Date of Birth entry in the relevant records, the petitioner has taken a plea of malafide. However, the mere usage of such an expression is not sufficient unless it is supported by a substantial foundation of facts. It is also well settled that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of malafides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility.”
Noting that the case squarely fell within the ambit of ‘Approbate and Reprobate’— a doctrine which bars a person from taking advantage of a document while challenging the same— the Court upheld the impugned memo and dismissed the petition.
Case Details:
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 41332/2016
Case Title: Sankarappa v. APSPDCL Chairman M D Tirupati 2 and Others
