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 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. 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. 5 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 8 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 9 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 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