Union Of India v. Ram Suia Sharma .

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter arises from an appeal in which the respondent, who joined service on 16-12-1962, sought correction of his date of birth recorded in service records. After approximately 25 years, the respondent claimed that his correct date of birth was 2-1-1939 rather than 16-12-1934. The Tribunal accepted the claim and directed the Government to consider the requested correction. The present appeal challenged that Tribunal direction. Leave to appeal was granted.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a court or tribunal, at a belated stage, can entertain a claim for correction of a date of birth duly entered in service records.
2. Whether the Tribunal acted illegally in directing the Government to consider correction of the respondent’s date of birth claim raised after about 25 years of service.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that the controversy was no longer res integra, stating that in a series of judgments it has consistently ruled that a court or tribunal cannot, at a belated stage, entertain claims seeking correction of date of birth entries duly recorded in service records.

Applying that principle to the facts, the Court noted that the respondent entered service on 16-12-1962 and raised the correction claim only after 25 years, seeking to substitute the recorded date of birth (16-12-1934) with 2-1-1939. In light of the settled position against entertaining such delayed claims, the Court concluded that the Tribunal’s direction to the Government to consider correction was per se illegal.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED: The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal’s direction to the Government to consider correction of the respondent’s date of birth was held to be illegal. No order as to costs was made.

The direct effect is that the respondent’s belated request for correction of the date of birth cannot be acted upon pursuant to the Tribunal’s direction. The opinion indicates reliance on an already settled line of decisions and does not articulate any new or broader precedent beyond applying that settled rule.