- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Brigadier Prithvi Raj (Petitioner) v. The Union Of India And Another (S).
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, a Brigadier in the Indian Army, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to amend his service record to show his date of birth as 12-5-1935 instead of 1-3-1933 and to quash the Central Government's order dated 18-6-1983 (Annexure P.8) that rejected his statutory complaint dated 19-1-1983.
The petitioner was born in village Balhar, tehsil Kahuta, district Rawalpindi (now in Pakistan). He migrated to India after Partition and joined the Indian Army in September 1948 as a boy. Because he had no documentary proof of his birth at enlistment, the Recruiting Officer, after medical and physical examination, entered his date of birth in the service record as 1-3-1933.
The petitioner later sat for the Panjab University Matriculation examination (private candidate) in 1956 and used the service-record date (1-3-1933) on the application. He passed and was issued a Matriculation certificate showing 1-3-1933. Upon learning that his actual date of birth was 12-5-1935, he applied (through Army authorities) in 1965 to the Panjab University for correction. The University Syndicate, after verification (including examination of the Lower Middle School register from Balhar and verification through the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan), accepted the correction in January 1970 and issued a duplicate Matriculation certificate showing 12-5-1935 (Annexure P.2).
The petitioner and his commanding officers forwarded the University decision and supporting records to Army Headquarters requesting amendment of the service record. Army Headquarters asked for originals and particulars and the petitioner supplied further information including Annexure P.16 (school register extract) and family dates of birth. Despite these steps, the Central Government rejected his statutory complaint by order dated 18-6-1983 (Annexure P.8). The petitioner submitted a further representation dated 18-8-1983, which was stated to be pending with the Ministry of Defence. He approached the High Court by way of writ petition, asserting that unless his date of birth were corrected to 12-5-1935 he would lose opportunity for promotion to Major General.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to correct his date of birth in the service record from 1-3-1933 to 12-5-1935, given the Panjab University correction and supporting verification.
- Whether the petition is barred by delay or laches and/or by Ministry of Defence instructions limiting amendment of date of birth to within two years of enrolment/commissioning.
- Whether the Central Government's order rejecting the statutory complaint (Annexure P.8) is legally sustainable, particularly where it is a non-speaking order that does not assign reasons.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner asserted his true date of birth is 12-5-1935 and produced documentary evidence: a corrected Matriculation certificate (Annexure P.2) issued by the Panjab University and an attested extract from the Lower Middle School register (Annexure P.16) verified through official channels.
- He had pursued correction through proper channels since 1965; the Panjab University accepted and corrected his Matriculation record in 1970 after verification through the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan.
- The petitioner stressed that the absence of correction would prejudice his seniority and prospects for promotion (specifically consideration for promotion to Major General), and sought correction of his service record accordingly.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents contended the petitioner was required to seek amendment of date of birth within two years of entry into service, relying on Ministry of Defence instructions (Memo No. 33(1)/A/64.D dated 21-4-1964 and Memo No. 757.D(MS)5046-M/D(Coord) dated 23-6-1954).
- They argued the petition was barred by delay and laches: the petitioner’s first representation was allegedly rejected in 1979 and subsequent steps were belated; he later made another similar representation which was rejected by Annexure P.8.
- They relied on precedent (as placed before the Court) to support refusal in long-delayed cases affecting others' rights (the respondents relied on Rabindra Nath Bose and N.S. Mehta as authority for declining relief in cases of long delay affecting seniority).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rabindra Nath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84 (A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 470) | Authority where relief was declined after a very long delay (nearly 16 years) because rights of those placed senior would be unsettled. | The court distinguished this case: unlike that situation, the present petition did not seek to unsettle long-established seniority relations and the factual history here showed earlier steps for correction dating from 1965–1970. |
| N.S. Mehta v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 260 | Similar authority on refusing relief where rectification was sought after long delay affecting others' rights. | Distinguished on facts for the same reasons as Rabindra Nath Bose; the court held the present case was not analogous. |
| G.P. Doval v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., 1984 (2) S.L.R. 555 | Authority relied upon to address laches and delay principles in administrative correction cases. | The court relied on this ratio to hold that the petition did not suffer from laches given the early steps taken by the petitioner and the particular circumstances of verification and university correction. |
| Shri Sohan Singh Bawa v. State of Haryana, 1967 S.L.R. 934 | Established that a correct date of birth gives a government servant the right to continue in service until attaining superannuation, if otherwise fit; a vested legal right. | The court invoked this principle to hold that administrative instructions cannot divest a government servant of the vested right derived from the correct date of birth. |
| Shri Manak Chand Valdya v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1976 (1) S.L.R. 402 | Division Bench authority indicating administrative instructions cannot override a legitimate/vested right regarding date of birth corrections. | The court cited this case as a supporting authority for the proposition that administrative instructions cannot take away vested rights to have correct date of birth recorded. |
| Pramatha Nath Chaudhury v. The State of West Bengal, 1981 (1) S.L.R. 570 | Division Bench authority on similar proposition that vested rights cannot be overridden by administrative directions. | Cited as additional support for the view that the Ministry of Defence instructions did not oust the petitioner’s vested right to correction. |
| Baijnath v. The General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur, 1986 Lab. I.C. 178 | Recent Division Bench authority aligning with the position that vested rights in date-of-birth matters are protected against administrative inhibition. | Cited as further corroboration; the court treated it as consistent with the view that administrative memos cannot defeat a properly established entitlement to correction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded in two stages: first addressing the respondents' preliminary objection of delay/laches and then examining the merits of the statutory complaint for correction of date of birth.
On the laches/delay point, the Court considered the authorities relied upon by the respondents (Rabindra Nath Bose and N.S. Mehta) and found them distinguishable. Those authorities involved attempts to rectify seniority positions after very long delays (about 16 years), thereby affecting rights of those already placed senior and creating uncertainty in seniority. By contrast, the petitioner had initiated steps for correction through Panjab University as early as 1965; the University had after verification corrected the Matriculation record in 1970. The petitioner and his superiors had thereafter forwarded the University decision and supporting records to Army Headquarters. Given this sequence and relying on G.P. Doval, the Court concluded the petition did not suffer from laches and that the preliminary objection should not bar relief.
On the merits, the Court found there was "no material to question" that the petitioner's correct date of birth was 12-5-1935: the Syndicate of Panjab University corrected the Matriculation certificate after verifying the Lower Middle School record (Annexure P.16) through the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan. The Court observed that the impugned Central Government order (Annexure P.8) did not assign reasons and was therefore a non-speaking order violative of principles of natural justice.
The respondents had relied on Ministry of Defence instructions (dated 23-6-1954 and 21-4-1964) limiting amendment of date of birth to within two years of enrolment/commissioning. The Court held that such administrative instructions cannot oust the vested legal right of a government servant to have his correct date of birth recorded and to continue in service until superannuation, citing Shri Sohan Singh Bawa and other High Court Division Bench authorities. The Court also noted a comparable administrative decision in Major N.C. Changippa’s case (Annexure P.14) where correction was allowed with recovery of overpayment for the period served while technically under-age; this showed that similar cases had been treated by the Ministry of Defence in a manner that did not deny correction.
Concluding its analysis, the Court found the factual verification (University and school records) sufficient, the administrative refusal unsupported by reasons, and the legal principle protecting vested rights persuasive. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court QUASHED the impugned order dated 18-6-1983 (Annexure P.8) and directed the respondents to correct the petitioner’s date of birth in his service record from 1-3-1933 to 12-5-1935 as reflected in the Panjab University Matriculation certificate (Annexure P.2). The petition was allowed and there was no order as to costs.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The respondents are directed to amend the petitioner’s service record to reflect the corrected date of birth (12-5-1935) and to afford him the benefits to which he is otherwise entitled on the basis of his merits and seniority, in accordance with that corrected date.
- On administrative instructions: The Court emphasised that Ministry of Defence instructions limiting amendment of date of birth within two years cannot override a government servant’s vested right to have his correct date of birth recorded where proper verification (as with the Panjab University decision and school register verification) has been made; accordingly administrative memos cannot be relied upon to deny such a right without proper reasoning.
- Scope of precedent: The Court distinguished earlier Supreme Court authorities that refused relief in long-delay seniority cases and relied on other authorities to reject the laches objection here. The decision is grounded on the specific facts of timely steps taken for verification and correction and the absence of a convincing reasoned refusal by the administrative authority.
Final statement in the opinion: "Petition allowed." (There shall, however, be no order as to costs.)
D.V Sehgal, J.:— The petitioner, who is a Brigadier in the Indian Army, has sought a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to effect necessary change in bis service record so as to record his date of birth as 12-5-1935 instead of 1-3-1933 after quashing the impugned order dated 18-6-1983 Annexure P. 8, whereby his statutory complaint dated 19-1-1983 for change of his date of birth as above was rejected.
2. The petitioner claimed that he was born on 12-5-1935 in village Balhar, tehsil Kahuta, district Rawalpindi, now a part of Pakistan.
3. In the year 1947, after partition of the country, he along with the other members of the family migrated to India. In September, 1948, he joined the Indian Army as a boy. Since he had no proof of his date of birth in his possession, the Recruiting Officer, after examining his physique and taking into account the report of his medical examination, entered in the service record his date of birth as 1-3-1933. While serving the Army, he appeared in the Matriculation examination held by the Panjab University in the year 1956 as a private candidate from Jalandhar. In his application form for the said examination, he entered his date of birth as 1-3-1933 on the basis of the date entered in his service record. He passed the Matriculation examination and certificate in this regard showing his date of birth as 1-3-1933 was issued. Later on, when he learnt that his actual date of birth is 12-5-1935, he moved an application for correction of his date of birth in his certificate of Matriculation examination, which was forwarded to the Registrar, Panjab University, by the Commandant, Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, where he was posted as a Captain at that time, vide letter dated 8-9-1965. His Commandant actively pursued the matter and addressed a letter dated 22-10-1965 Annexure P. 11 to the Punjab University requesting that the decision Page: 756on his application should be expedited. The Registrar, Panjab University vide his letter dated 29-10-1965 Annexure P. 12 informed the Commandant that necessary action on his application for correction of date of birth was being taken and the decision when arrived at would be communicated to the petitioner. It was after nearly five years that the Registrar, Panjab University, vide his letter dated 4-2-1970 Annexure P. 1 addressed to the petitioner, who by that time had been promoted to the rank of Major, communicated to him the decision of the Syndicate of the University in its proceedings dated 17-1-1970 to accept his application to the effect that his correct date of birth is 12-5-1935. His original Matriculation certificate was cancelled and a duplicate copy thereof (Annexure P. 2) with his correct date of birth as 12-5-1935 was issued. His Commanding Officer submitted a casualty return Serial No. 26 dated 13-2-1970 to the Adjutant General's Branch, Army Head-quarters, New Delhi, and also submitted the original letter of the Panjab University and the Matriculation certificate for perusal and return with the request that the petitioners record should be amended accordingly and that this fact should be confirmed. A copy of the casualty return is Annexure P. 4. The Army Headquarters vide letter dated 13-3-1970 Annexure P. 5 informed his Commanding Officer that before his case regarding change of his date of birth was examined, he should forward in original all the correspondence exchanged between him and the Syndicate of the Panjab University and the particular document on the basis of which his date of birth was changed to 12-5-1935. He made a reference to the Panjab University and received a reply from its Registrar vide letter dated 4-6-1970 Annexure P. 6 informing him that the correction of his date of birth was allowed on the basis of an extract of entries from the Admission and withdrawal Register supplied by the Headmaster, Government Primary School, Balhar (Pakistan) and the genuineness of the entries therein was got verified through the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan. It was further stated that the original extract of entries could not be returned to him as it formed the part of the office record of the University. However, an attested copy of the same was sent to him. It may be mentioned here that during the course of hearing of the petition before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced an attested copy of the said entry Annexure P. 16 from the register maintained in the Lower Middle School, Balhar, tehsil Kahuta, district Rawalpindi, duly attested by the Superintendent (Stores), Panjab University, Chandigarh. The petitioner supplied this information to the Army Headquarters. On a subsequent reference, he further supplied information with respect to the dates of birth of his brothers and sisters, elder and younger to him, to the Army Headquarters vide letter dated 20-11-1970 Annexure P. 7. It was vide order dated 18-6-1983 Annexure P. 8 that an order passed by the Central Government rejecting his request for change in his date of birth in his service record was communicated to him. The order of the Central Government is to the following effect:—
“The Central Government, after considering the statutory complaint dated 19 January, 1983 submitted by Brig. Prithvi Raj (IC- 11003N) for change of his date of birth from 1 Mar 1933 12 May 1935, hereby rejected the said complaint.
By order and in the name of the President.
(Sd). (P.G GEORGE),
Under Secretary to the Government of India.
4. On receipt of this decision, he made another representatio n dated 18-8-1983 Annexure P. 9 to the Central Government which, both according to the petitioner as also the respondents, is s ill pending consideration with the Ministry of Defence, The petitioner, however, approached this Court through the present writ petition for seeking necessary relief and made an application to the effect that the Promotion Board was to meet somewhere in the middle of April this year to consider the cases for promotion of Brigadiers to the higher rank of Major General and if the date of birth of the petitioner was not corrected to 12-5-1935, he would not be entitled for consideration for promotion to the said higher rank.
5. The respondents have opposed the prayer in the writ petition by filing a written statement. It has been stated therein that the petitioner was entitled to get the date of birth corrected within a period of two years from entry into service. Since his application for correction of his date of birth was long after this period of two years, his request was rightly turned down by the Central Government in view of the instructions of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence contained in Memo No. 33(1)/A/64.D dated 21-4-1964 and Memo No. 757.D(MS)5046-M/D(Coord) dated 23-6-1954 which lay down that the amendment of date of birth should be carried out within two years of enrolment or commisioning as applicable. The petition was also opposed on the ground that it suffers from laches in that the first representation of the petitioner was rejected in the year 1979. He then made a second representation which was similar to the earlier one except that in this subsequent representation he quoted the instances of correction of date of birth of Major N.C Chingappa, Major Parduman Singh and Major G.S Negi. It is this representation which was rejected through the impugned Annexure P. 8. No doubt, he made yet another representation, which is pending, but he has chosen to approach this Court at a late stage and this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to afford relief to the petitioner as claimed by him.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. As regards the preliminary objection of the respondents that the petition is belated and suffers from laches, I am of the considered view that this objection should not stand in my way to grant necessary relief to the petitioner. The judgments of the Supreme Court in Rabindra Nath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84 : A.I.R 1970 S.C 470, and N.S Mehta v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 260, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are distinguishable. In those cases the petitioners sought rectification of their position in the seniority vis-a-vis other incumbents after a period of nearly 16 years. What weighed with the Supreme Court to decline the relief was that the rights of those who had already been placed senior to the petitioners were involved and their seniority could not be kept in uncertainty for so long a period. The present case is clearly distinguishable. Admittedly, the petitioner applied to to Panjab University for correction of his date of birth in the Matriculation certificate through the Army authorities as far back as in the year 1965. His date of birth was ultimately corrected by the Syndicate of the University after verifying the Lower Middle School record of his native village Balhar now in Pakistan through the agency of the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan in the year 1970. The request for correction of date of birth was made by him through his immediate superiors the to Army Headquarters soon thereafter. No doubt his request was declined in the first instance in the year 1979. Since he was made to understand that the date of birth originally recorded in the service record on Page: 758his entry into service could be corrected only within a period of two years and further that had his correct date of birth been known at the time when he joined Army as a boy in September, 1948, he being under-age, might not have been so recruited, he made the second statutory complaint citing the instances of correction of date of birth of the officers mentioned above, which was ultimately rejected vide order Annexure P. 8. He made yet another representation whis is admittedly pending with the Ministry of Defence. In this view of the matter, relying on the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in G.P Doval v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P, 1984 (2) S.L.R 555, I held that the petition does not suffer from laches.
7. Now coming to the merits of the case, there is no material to question the correct date of birth of the petitioner being 12-5-1935. As already mentioned above, the Syndicate of the Panjab University corrected the date of birth in the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner after verifying the facts and the record of the Lower Middle School of his native village Balhar, tehsil Kahuta, district Rawalpindi in Pakistan through the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan. A copy of the entry from the school register is Annexure P. 16. The correction in the date of birth in his service record has, however, been disallowed on the ground that it violates the instructions of the Ministry of Defence contained in its orders dated 23-6-1954 and 21-4-1964. As far back as in the year 1967 it was held by this Court in Shri Sohan Singh Bawa, District Education Officer v. State of Haryana, 1967 S.L.R 934, that the correct date of birth gives a right to the Government servant to continue in service till his attaining the age of superannuation provided he is otherwise fit to continue in service. This is an important legal right which cannot be brushed aside on the basis of administrative instructions. The impugned order Annexure P. 8 which has been reproduced above does not assign any reasons for rejecting the petitioner's request for correction of his date of birth in his service record. This is a non-speaking order which is violative of the principles of natural justice.
8. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Shri Manak Chand Valdya v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1976 (1) S.L.R 402, and by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Pramatha Nath Chaudhury v. The State of West Bengal, 1981(1) S.L.R 570. A recent judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Baijnath v. The General Manager, N.E Railway, Gorakhpur, 1986 Lab. I.C 178, is also to the same effect. I am of the considered view that the administrative instructions contained in the orders of the Ministry of Defence on which reliance has been placed by respondents cannot take away the vested right of the petitioner to have his date of birth corrected in accordance with what has been actually found and which is now incorporated in his Matriculation certificate by the Panjab University as reflected in a copy of the said certificate Annexure P. 2. His date of birth 12-5-1935, it is imperative on the respondents to carry out the correction in his service record and afford him necessary benefits to which he is otherwise entitled on the basis of his merits and seniority in service. The contention that the petitioner was underage when he was recruited as a boy in September. 1948, loses significance when the case of Major N.C Changippa decided by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, vide letter dated 22-4-1976 Annexure P. 14 is taken into consideration. His age was considered to be 15 years on the basis of his appearance when he was recruited as a boy. Vide order Annexure P. 14 his date of birth was corrected as 8-5-1935 with ah order that the over-payment made to him in boy's service for the period Page: 759he was under the age of 15 years should be recovered from him. There is no ground to treat the petitioner's case differently and to deny him the relief which in similar circumstances was afforded to Major N.C Chan gippa vide order Annexure P. 14. Consequently, I allow this petition, quash the order dated 18-6-1983 Annexure P. 8 and direct the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 1-3-1933 to 12-5-1935 in his service record, as mentioned in his Matriculation certificate/Annexure P. 2 issued by the Panjab University. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
9. Petition allowed.
Alert