Date of birth correction claim within limitation where cause arose on rejection of request; declaratory relief and damages upheld.

A suit for correction of date of birth was held within limitation because the cause of action arose only when the plaintiff discovered the incorrect entry and the correction request was rejected; the three-year period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act was satisfied, and Fundamental Rule 56 did not bar relief on the facts. Contemporaneous documents, including the matriculation certificate, attestation form and passport, consistently supported the claimed date of birth, while the employer could not explain the contrary service record. Declaratory and mandatory injunction relief was therefore upheld, and the award of damages, interest and costs for the resulting harassment and litigation was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit for correction of date of birth was barred by limitation and whether the cause of action arose only on rejection of the representation; (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to declaration and mandatory injunction correcting the service record to reflect the date of birth as 02.10.1962; (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for harassment and consequential interest and costs.

Issue (i): whether the suit for correction of date of birth was barred by limitation and whether the cause of action arose only on rejection of the representation?

Analysis: The service record, seniority list and cash receipts were relied upon by the employer to contend that the plaintiff knew of the entry as 02.10.1960 much earlier. The Court accepted the trial court's finding that those materials did not establish prior knowledge on the plaintiff's part. The plaintiff's case remained that he came to know of the incorrect entry only in July 2013, immediately sought correction on 31.07.2013, and the request was rejected on 03.11.2014. On those facts, the right to sue was treated as having accrued on rejection of the representation, and the suit filed thereafter was held to be within the three-year period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The five-year restriction in Fundamental Rule 56 was also found inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The suit was held to be within limitation and the objection based on Fundamental Rule 56 failed.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff was entitled to declaration and mandatory injunction correcting the service record to reflect the date of birth as 02.10.1962?

Analysis: The Court found that the matriculation certificate, attestation form, passport and other service-related documents consistently showed the date of birth as 02.10.1962. The employer did not explain why the service record carried 02.10.1960 despite the contemporaneous documents submitted at the time of appointment. The Court accepted the trial court's inference that the incorrect entry was an error or manipulation not attributable to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had not delayed in seeking correction after discovering the discrepancy. The precedents relied upon by the employer were distinguished on facts because they involved delayed claims or a different factual matrix.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was held entitled to declaration and mandatory injunction correcting the date of birth in the service record to 02.10.1962.

Issue (iii): whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for harassment and consequential interest and costs?

Analysis: The Court upheld the trial court's view that the plaintiff suffered undue harassment due to the incorrect service entry, the delay in deciding the representation, and the protracted litigation required to secure correction. The award of compensation was treated as justified in the circumstances, and the rates of interest and costs were not found warranting interference.

Conclusion: The award of damages, interest and costs was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all material grounds, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff for correction of date of birth together with monetary reliefs was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for correction of date of birth is within limitation where the claimant establishes that the cause of action arose only on discovery of the incorrect entry and rejection of the correction request, and contemporaneous documentary evidence showing the correct date of birth may justify declaratory and consequential relief where the employer fails to explain the inconsistent service record.

---