Delhi High Court- Canara Bank v. P. Umesh Pai

The date of birth of Respondent at the time of joining the service was recorded as 26th May 1940 on the basis of Senior School Leaving Certificate. Respondent filed a civil suit in Mangalore wherein Appellant bank was not a party. Decree was passed in the said suit wherein directions were issued to correct the date of birth of the Respondent as 26th October 1942. Respondent made representation to the Appellant bank for correction of his date of birth in service record, which was rejected on 4th April 1978 on the ground that there was no such provision in the rules of Appellant bank. The Respondent thereafter, kept quiet and when he was about to retire he made another representation for correction of his date of birth, which was also rejected by Appellant. Respondent filed Writ Petition which was allowed by learned Single Judge holding that Appellant bank was bound to give effect to the decree passed by Civil Court and also held that Appellant bank was not a necessary party in the said suit as it was a matter concerning School Board and State Government. Hence present appeal. Appellant contended there was delay in approaching the Writ Court and it should have been dismissed at threshold and secondly there was no provision in Rules for correction of date of birth. Held Decision rendered by the Civil Court cannot be said to be binding and effective on the bank for the bank cannot even file an appeal to prove and establish that the aforesaid direction for correction of the date of birth in the service record would not and cannot bind the bank to change the date of birth as entered in the service record of the bank. There is inordinate delay and laches on the part of the Appellant in approaching the writ Court of this Court. The Appellant after rejection of the first representation could and should have immediately approached the writ Court. The Respondent slept over his rights, if any, and accepted the position and only a few days before his date of retirement took up the plea once again by initially filing a representation and on rejection thereof by filing a Writ Petition. Successive representations after rejection of the first representation would not explain the delay. Such a Writ Petition should not have been entertained when filed only a few days prior to the date of retirement. It is apparent that the Writ Petition was filed with a delay of about 22 years and that also just before his retirement. In that view of the matter also the Respondent is not entitled to any relief in the Writ Petition.

Manupatra Legal Database
Manupatra Round up