Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs Sri.Dundappa Ammanna Mendigeri on 12 November, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH 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, 3RD FLOOR,
RISALDAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 020
2. THE KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX, 3RD 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
2ND 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)
1. 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.
2. 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
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Aggrieved by which, the appellant-Board is in appeal.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
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.
9. 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)
10. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside
the impugned order.
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.
12. 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.
13. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
14. We have given our anxious consideration to the
contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the documents on record.
15. 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 appellant-
Board. There is no reason whatsoever forthcoming on record
why he has not produced the decree till 05.08.1999 and as to
why he has submitted the same only after his regularization in
the year 1998.
16. 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
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
