The Commissioner Vs Sri.Dundappa Ammanna Mendigeri — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Commissioner Vs Sri.Dundappa Ammanna Mendigeri — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed; the learned Single Judge's order dated 24.01.2024 in W.P.No.23090/2019 set aside. No monetary quantum awarded in the judgment text.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 was entitled to have his date of birth recorded as 25.12.1962 (per the 1994 civil court decree) and to service benefits with superannuation reckoned as 31.12.2022, as directed by the learned Single Judge, notwithstanding the delay in claiming the correction and the later unchallenged seniority lists recording 01.06.1959. +1 more

Court's answer

In matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of superannuation or at the fag end of career, the Court or Tribunal must act with circumspection, caution and care in directing correction of the date of birth recorded at entry into service, unless fully satisfied on irrefutable proof, adherence to the prescribed/consistently adopted departmental procedure, and real injustice caused.

Ratio / Principle

A government employee cannot claim correction of his/her date of birth as a matter of right, even if he/she has good evidence to establish it.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.1 sought correction of his date of birth for the first time only on 05.08.1999, i.e., about ten years after his 1989 daily-wage appointment, though the decree was obtained in 1994.ratio¶¶71
The 1994 decree was not produced before the Board for five years, and no reason is forthcoming on record why it was submitted only after regularization in 1998.ratio¶¶71
Respondent No.1's representation dated 30.05.2019 was made after his superannuation as per the date of birth produced at the time of appointment.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CAV judgment (delivered by Rajesh Rai K, J.; bench D K Singh and Rajesh Rai K, JJ) allowing Writ Appeal No.624/2024 filed by the Commissioner and the Karnataka Slum Development Board and setting aside the Single Judge's order dated 24.01.2024 in W.P.No.23090/2019, which had directed the Board to record respondent No.1's date of birth as 25.12.1962 (per the decree dated 16.02.1994 in O.S.No.326/1990) and to grant service benefits reckoning superannuation as 31.12.2022. Held: in date-of-birth correction matters, especially on the eve of superannuation or at the fag end of career, courts/tribunals must be circumspect, cautious and careful before directing correction of the date of birth recorded at entry into service, unless satisfied on irrefutable proof, adherence to the prescribed or consistently adopted departmental procedure, and real injustice; a government employee cannot claim correction as a matter of right even with good evidence. Decisive findings: the first claim was made only on 05.08.1999 (about ten years after the 1989 daily-wage appointment and about five years after the decree, produced without explanation only after regularization in 1998); the renewal representation of 30.05.2019 came after superannuation; and the seniority lists of 14.03.2008, 02.04.2013, 10/12.09.2014 and 19.11.2015 reverting to 01.06.1959 went unchallenged, a fact allegedly suppressed in the writ petition. The Supreme Court dicta cited by the parties (including Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.; Hayagreev Sarma (1990) 2 SCC 682; Gokrakhnath Sitaram Kamble (2010) 14 SCC 423; R. Basavaraju (2016) 15 SCC 781; T.P. Nataraja (2021) 12 SCC 27; General Manager v. Vice President 2024 SCC OnLine SC 491) were perused and relied upon.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

WRIT APPEAL NO 624 OF 2024

BETWEEN

1 . THE COMMISSIONER

KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD

NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR,

RISALDAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM

BENGALURU-560 020

2 . THE KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD

NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR,

RISALDAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM

BENGALURU-560 020

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. B.B PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . SRI.DUNDAPPA AMMANNA MENDIGERI

S/O LATE AMMANNA

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

2

KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD SAI MANDIR, DAVANAGERE DAVANAGERE DIST-577001

ALSO RESIDING AT:

PLOT NO.46, P AND T COLONY 2^ND STAGE, HANUMANTHANAGARA BELAGAVI-577 428

2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.R. ARUNA, AGA FOR R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-23090/2019 (S-RES) ALSO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

3

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant/Board challenging the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23090/2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that: The petitioner/respondent No.1 was appointed on 12.02.1989 as an Assistant Engineer in the appellant-Board on daily wage basis and at the time of his appointment, he mentioned his date of birth as 01.06.1959 . Thereafter, he filed O.S.No.326/1990 seeking declaration for change of his date of birth from 01.06.1959 to 25.12.1962 . On 16.02.1994, the Trial Court decreed the said suit declaring his date of birth as 25.12.1962. Subsequently, on 23.12.1998, his services were regularized with effect from 01.04.1992. On 05.08.1999, respondent No.1 submitted an affidavit followed by a representation dated 23.09.1999 to the appellant-Board requesting for correction of his date of birth as 25.12.1962. Thereafter, the appellant-Board initially issued seniority list on 06.10.1999 and again on 12.12.2007 mentioning the date of

4

birth in both the seniority lists as 25.12.1962. However, the subsequent seniority lists published on 14.03.2008, 02.04.2013, 10.09.2014 and 19.11.2015 rectifying the date of birth of respondent No.1 as 01.06.1959 were not questioned by him and the same remained unchallenged.

Further, on 29.05.2019, the appellant-Board issued a relieving order to respondent No.1 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, on 30.05.2019, respondent No.1 submitted a representation once again requesting to consider his date of birth as 25.12.1962 reiterating his earlier representation dated 05.08.1999. However, respondent No.1 was relieved from service on 31.05.2019 without any protest. Thereafter, respondent No.1 claimed retiral benefits and an order was passed on 09.10.2023 granting provisional pensionary benefits, subject to the closure of departmental enquiry. Aggrieved by the relieving order dated 29.05.2019 and seeking to enter the date of birth of respondent No.1 as 25.12.1962 in his service register and continue his service till he attains the age of superannuation on 31.12.2022, he approached this Court by filing WP.No.23090/2024.

5

The learned Single Judge by the impugned order allowed

the writ petition directing the appellant-Board to record the date of birth of respondent No.1 as 25.12.1962 and grant all service benefits and consequent emoluments by considering the date of superannuation as 31.12.2022.

Aggrieved by which, the appellant-Board is in appeal.

We have heard Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Board, Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri G.R.Aruna, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2.

The primary contention of the appellant-Board is that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 had joined service on 12.02.1989 on daily wage basis, though his services were regularized with effect from 01.04.1992 vide order dated 23.12.1998.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Board also contended

that in view of Section 5(2) of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974, the specific time frame within which state servant can seek alterations to his/her age and date of birth is three years from the date on which his/her

6

age and date of birth is accepted and recorded in the official service record. As such, respondent No.1 has failed to seek alteration of his date of birth within the said time frame. Further, there is inordinate delay of nearly five years in informing the appellant-Board about the alteration of his date of birth since the same was informed to the appellant-Board in the year 1999, even though the judgment and decree obtained by respondent No.1 declaring his date of birth was in the year 1994. He also contended that, the correction of age at the fag end of retirement of an employee cannot be accepted as held by this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. As such, the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition.

In order to buttress his arguments, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL No.2858/2022 ( SHANKAR LAL V/s HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. & ORS)

Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

7

11 . Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.1

contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order considering all the materials on record and also the decree obtained by respondent No.1 declaring his date of birth as 25.12.1962. He also contended that, once the appellant-Board accepted the changed date of birth of respondent No.1 and published seniority list considering his date of birth as 25.12.1962, it cannot take a U-turn.

In order to buttress his arguments, he relied upon the following judgments:

i) GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER V/S M. HAYAGREEV SARMA - (1990) 2 SCC 682.

ii) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER V/S GOKRAKHNATH SITARAM KAMBLE & OTHERS - (2010) 14 SCC 423.

iii) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANOTHER V/S R. BASAVARAJU - (2016) 15 SCC 781.

iv) KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT V/S T.P. NATARAJA & OTHERS - (2021) 12 SCC 27.

v) GENERAL MANAGER V/S VICE PRESIDENT - 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 491.

8

Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.

As could be gathered from records, respondent No.1 was initially appointed on 12.02.1989 declaring his date of birth as 01.06.1959. His services were regularized vide order dated 23.12.1998 with effect from 01.04.1992. He got the decree declaring his date of birth as 25.12.1962 in the year 1994. It could be noticed from records that respondent No.1 submitted the representation before the appellant-Board on 05.08.1999 for the first time i.e. after 10 years from the date of his appointment on daily wage basis i.e. in the year 1989 though his service was regularized on 23.12.1998, with effect from 01.04.1992 based on the documents produced by him at the time of his appointment on daily wage basis. Be that as it may, he obtained the decree declaring his date of birth as 25.12.1962 in the year 1994. Strangely he has not produced the said decree for a period of 5 years before the appellantBoard. There is no reason whatsoever forthcoming on record why he has not produced the decree till 05.08.1999 and as to

9

why he has submitted the same only after his regularization in the year 1998.

Nevertheless, the seniority lists issued subsequently on 14.03.2008, 02.04.2013, 10/12.09.2014 and 19.11.2015 rectifying his date of birth as 01.06.1959 had remained unchallenged and the said fact was suppressed by respondent No.1 while filing the writ petition. Respondent No.1 submitted the representation on 30.05.2019 i.e. after his superannuation as per his date of birth produced at the time of appointment. On careful perusal of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgments, it is clear that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a Government servant, particularly on eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his carrier, the Court or the Tribunal has to circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry in to any government service, unless the Court or Tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his/her 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

10

the person concerned. The Government employee cannot claim as a matter of right the correction of his/her date of birth, even if he/she has good evidence to establish. As such, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition. As such, interference is required with the impugned order. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed .

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

PKS

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 24.01.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23090/2019 (S-RES) allowing the writ petition and directing the appellant-Board to record respondent No.1's date of birth as 25.12.1962 and grant all service benefits and consequent emoluments reckoning date of superannuation as 31.12.2022.¶¶42
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka · 24.01.2024
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) was appointed on 12.02.1989 as Assistant Engineer in the appellant-Board on daily wage basis; at appointment he mentioned his date of birth as 01.06.1959.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
He filed O.S.No.326/1990 seeking declaration for change of his date of birth from 01.06.1959 to 25.12.1962.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
On 16.02.1994 the Trial Court decreed the suit, declaring his date of birth as 25.12.1962.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
His services were regularized with effect from 01.04.1992 vide order dated 23.12.1998.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
On 05.08.1999 he submitted an affidavit followed by representation dated 23.09.1999 to the Board requesting correction of his date of birth as 25.12.1962.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
The Board initially issued seniority lists on 06.10.1999 and again on 12.12.2007, recording his date of birth as 25.12.1962 in both.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
Subsequent seniority lists published on 14.03.2008, 02.04.2013, 10.09.2014 and 19.11.2015 reverted to 01.06.1959; these were not questioned by him and remained unchallenged.¶¶45
Prior proceeding
On 29.05.2019 the Board issued a relieving order to respondent No.1 on attaining the age of superannuation.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
On 30.05.2019 he renewed his representation to reckon his date of birth as 25.12.1962, reiterating his earlier representation dated 05.08.1999.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
He was relieved from service on 31.05.2019 without any protest.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
On 09.10.2023 provisional pensionary benefits were granted, subject to closure of departmental enquiry.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the relieving order dated 29.05.2019, he approached the High Court by writ petition (pleaded as W.P.No.23090/2019 in the caption and at ¶42, and as WP.No.23090/2024 at ¶46), seeking entry of 25.12.1962 in the service register and continuance of service till 31.12.2022.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
The appeal was reserved for judgment on 06.11.2025 and pronounced on 12.11.2025.¶¶37