Appeal No 265 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 10 1966 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No 266 of 1965
Naunit Lal for the appellants
R Gopalakrishnan for respondent No 1
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J
Daksha Prasad Deka hereinafter called the res pondent  was appointed Assistant Sub Inspector of Police with 688 effect from January 17 1929
On a representation made by the respondent the date of his birth was entered in the service record as July 1 1910
Under FR 56a the respondent was liable to be compulsorily retired on July 1 1965
In 1956 the respondent applied that the date of birth entered in his service record be showing as August 1 191 1
That application was rejected
The respondent again applied in 1963 for correction of his date of birth
The application was rejected and by order dated June 26 1965 the respondent was informed that he win stand superannuated on June 30 1965
His representation made to the Government of Assam against that order was unsuccessful
The respondent then applied to the High Court of Assam praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the State of Assam to forbear from giving effect to the order dated June 26 1965
The High Court quashed the order dated June 26 1965 and directed the State of Assam to give an opportunity to the respondent to show cause against the order directing compulsory retirement and an opportunity to prove his true date of birth
Against that order this appeal is preferred with special leave
In the opinion of the High Court if the true date of birth of the respondent was August 1 1 9 1 1 the order compulsorily retiring the respondent on June 30 1965 without giving him an opportunity to prove his true age infringed the guarantee of article 3112 of the Constitution
In our judgment the High Court was wrong in holding that there was any infringement of article 3112 of the Constitution
In the service record of the respondent his date of birth was recorded as July 1 1910 and under FR 56a the respondent was liable to be compulsorily retired on the date on which he attained the age of 55 years
The date of compulsory retirement under FR 56a must in our judgment be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the respondent claimed to be his date of birth unless the service record is first corrected consistently with the appropriate procedure
A public servant may disputethe date of birth as entered in the service record and may apply for correction of the record
But until the record is corrected he cannot claim that he has been deprived of the guarantee under article 3112 of the Constitution by being compulsorily retired on attaining the age of  superannuation on the footing of the date of birth entered in the service record
is true that the State authorities did not give to the respondent an opportunity to support his case that he was born on 689 August 1 1911 and that the service record was erroneous
But in view of SR 8 Note which governed the employment of the respondent an application for correction of the service record could not be entertained if it was made within three years before the date of actual supernuation
SR 8 Note provides No alteration in the date of birth of a Government servant should be allowed except in very rare cases where a manifest mistake has been made
Such mistakes should be rectified at the earliest opportunity in the course of 1 periodical re attestation of the entries in the first page of service book and 2 preparation of the annual detailed statement of a permanent establishment Financial Rule Form No 11 in which is noted the date of incumbent s birth
In no case the request for change in the date of birth of a Government servant made on a date with three years of the date of  his actual
superannuation  should be entertain ed
 Validity of the Rule is not challenged by the respondent
are unable to agree with the view of the High Court that the date of actual superannuation within the meaning
of SR 8 Note is the date of superannuation computed with reference to the claim made by the public servant and not with reference to the date as entered in the service record
If such an interpretation be accepted SR 8 Note would prove in a majority of cases of no practical utility
It is intended by SR 8 Note that any error in the service record shall be rectified at the earliest opportunity and in no case should an application for rectification be entertained within three years of the date of actual super annuation
ie the date of superannuation according to the service record
Again if the contention of the respondent were correct on the date on which he entered service he was a minor
If on a representation that he had attained the age of majority on the date on which he entered service it would not be open for him after being admitted to the service to contend that under the appropriate service rules he could not have been admitted to the service but for the misrepresentation made by him
Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of this Court in State of Orissa vs Dr Miss Binapani Dei  Ors
1 in support of the contention that a public servant must be given an opportunity to prove his true date of birth before he is superannuated and any order passed without such opportunity is illegal
In our judgment Dr Miss Binapani s case1 enunciates no such proposition
In that case in the service record of a pub 1 1967 2 section C R 625 2 L 694 Sup
CI171 690 lic servant April 10 1910 was entered as the date of her An enquiry was held and the public servant was required to show cause why her date of birth should not be accepted as April 1907
Thereafter the Government of Orissa determined her of birth as April 16 1907 and declared that she should deemed to have been superannuated on April 16 1962
order was challenged by the public servant in a petition to High Court of Orissa
The High Court held that the order the State Government amounted to compulsory retirement before she attained the age of superannuation and was contrary to the rules governing her service conditions and amounted to removal within the meaning of article 311 of the Constitution and since she was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to her the order was invalid
This Court confirmed the order passed by the High Court of Orissa
It was observed by this Court that even an administrative order which involved civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice The person concerned must be informed of the case of the State and the evidence in support thereof and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken The public servant according to the service record could not be superannuated before April 10 1965
But by an enquiry which was not held in a manner consistent with the rules of natural justice an order was made altering the date of birth as entered in the service record and declaring that she was born in 1907 That was plainly an order passed to the prejudice of the public servant without giving an opportunity to meet the case of the State
In the present case however the State did not seek to modify the service record it was the respondent who sought modification of the service record and claimed that he declared only on the basis of the rectification prayed for by him
It is true that ordinarily when an application is made for rectification of age by a public servant the State should give the applicant proper opportunity to prove his case and should give due consideration to the evidence brought before it
But in the present case since the application for rectification was made within three years of the date of actual superannuation according to SR 8 Note the application could not be entertained
The principle of Dr Miss Binapani s case1 has no application to this case
The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside
The petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed
There will be no order as to costs throughout


Summary:
The respondent was appointed Assistant Sub Inspector of Police with effect from January 17 1929 and on his own representation his date of birth was entered in the service record as July 1 1910
Under FR 56a he was liable to be compulsorily retired on July 1 1965 In 1963 he applied that the date of birth in the service record may be corrected as
August 1 1911
The application was rejected without giving him an opportunity to support his case and he was informed on June 26 1965
that he would stand superannuated on June 30 1965
He filed a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court quashed the order dated June 26 1965
In appeal to this Court HELD  Until the service record of a public servant is corrected he cannot claim that he has been deprived of the guarantee under article 3112 of the Constitution by being compulsorily retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of the service record
A public servant may dispute the correctness of the date of birth as entered in the service record and may apply for its correction but in view of SR 8 Note which governed the employment of the respondent an application for such a correction could not be entertained if it was made within three years before the date of actual superannuation 
The words actual superannuation  mean the date of superannuation according to the service record and not according to the date of birth claimed by the public servant
The respondent represented that he had attained the age of majority on the date on which he entered service
It was not open to him to contend that under the appropriate service rule he could not have been admitted to the service
688 G H 689 A B F G State of Orissa vs Dr Miss Bimapani Dei 1967 2 SCR 625 explained