Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Munshi Shah on 27 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1630 of 2018
Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. Kichha
--Petitioner
Versus
Munshi Shah
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinay
Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohd. Matloob, learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani, District Nainital, whereby the petitioner has been directed to correct the date of birth of the respondent in the service records as 20.11.1963 and to grant all consequential service benefits, holding that the respondent had been prematurely and unlawfully retired w.e.f. 03.06.2016. The controversy in the present petition revolves around the determination of the correct date of birth of the respondent and the legality of the order passed by the competent authority under the Certified Standing Orders governing the service conditions of the workman.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged in the services of the petitioner establishment, Kichha Sugar Company Ltd., initially as a daily wage mazdoor in the year 1978 and continued in employment thereafter. At the time of his engagement, no 1 documentary proof regarding his date of birth was available with him. In the year 1983, the petitioner got the age of the respondent assessed through a medical examination conducted at the Primary Health Centre, Kichha, and on the basis of the said assessment, his age was opined to be about 27 years as on 04.06.1983, leading the petitioner to record his date of birth as 04.06.1956 in the service records. Subsequently, in the year 1997, when the respondent was enrolled as a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, Form-2 (nomination and declaration form) was filled up and submitted to the EPF authorities through the petitioner, wherein the date of birth of the respondent was specifically recorded as 20.11.1963. The respondent's contributions towards EPF were continuously deducted thereafter. The said date of birth also found mention in other independent documents such as the Parivar Register and the Life Insurance Policy of the respondent. In April, 2016, the petitioner issued a retirement notice dated 01.04.2016 showing the date of retirement of the respondent as 03.06.2016 on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service book as 04.06.1956. The respondent, upon noticing the said notice on the notice board, immediately objected and submitted an application requesting correction of his date of birth in accordance with the records of the Provident Fund Department as 20.11.1963. The petitioner rejected the said request vide order dated 05.05.2016 and retired the respondent from service w.e.f. 03.06.2016. Aggrieved, the respondent approached the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner by filing an application under Clause LL-6 of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the establishment. After exchange of 2 pleadings, consideration of documentary evidence and hearing of the parties, the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner passed the order dated 10.05.2018 directing the petitioner to correct the date of birth of the respondent as 20.11.1963 and to extend consequential benefits from the date of his premature retirement. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner has failed to appreciate the material aspects of the case and has passed the impugned order without considering the binding effect of the service records maintained by the petitioner since the year 1983. It is argued that at the time of initial engagement, the respondent had no documentary proof regarding his date of birth. Therefore, his age was scientifically assessed through medical examination in 1983 and on that basis his date of birth was recorded as 04.06.1956. The respondent accepted the said entry and continued in service for decades without any objection.
4. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent cannot be permitted, at the verge of retirement, to take a "U" turn and claim a different date of birth on the basis of subsequent documents. Reliance is placed upon the Certified Standing Orders dated 26.07.1989, particularly Clause LL-3(iv), which provides that any request for modification of date of birth must be made within one year from the date of enforcement of the Standing Orders. Since the Standing Orders came into force on 26.07.1990, any request for change after the said period is barred.
5. Learned counsel argues that the entry in the 3 EPF Form-2 cannot override the service record maintained by the employer. It is submitted that the EPF form was filled much later and cannot displace the date of birth already determined and recorded on the basis of medical examination. It is also contended that the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner failed to appreciate that the respondent had himself signed various documents over the years showing his date of birth as 1956 and therefore is estopped from disputing the same at a belated stage. The impugned order, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the Standing Orders, contrary to settled service jurisprudence relating to correction of date of birth, and liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the entire foundation of the petitioner's case rests upon a medically assessed age in 1983, which has no legal sanctity and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of date of birth. It is argued that no scientific or ossification test was conducted and the certificate issued by the Medical Officer was merely on presumption and estimation, having no evidentiary value in law. It is further submitted that the most reliable and contemporaneous record regarding the date of birth of the respondent is the EPF Form-2 submitted in the year 1997, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 20.11.1963 and which was forwarded by the petitioner itself to the Provident Fund authorities. The said entry is corroborated by independent documents such as the Parivar Register and LIC policy.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that the respondent is an illiterate person who could only sign and was never explained the entries made in the 4 service book by the petitioner. The service records were never supplied to him and he had no knowledge that his date of birth was recorded as 1956. It is also contended that the respondent raised objection immediately upon noticing the retirement notice in April 2016 and therefore cannot be accused of delay or acquiescence. The petitioner, according to the respondent, deliberately ignored authentic records and relied upon an unreliable medical estimate to prematurely retire him. It is further submitted that the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, rightly held that the correct date of birth is 20.11.1963 and that the respondent had been illegally retired well before attaining the age of superannuation. The impugned order, it is argued, is well reasoned, based on evidence, and does not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court proceeds to determine the present writ petition. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaun Region, Haldwani, whereby the petitioner-employer has been directed to correct the date of birth of the respondent- workman as 20.11.1963 and to extend consequential benefits on the finding that the respondent had been prematurely retired from service. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the date of birth of the respondent had long stood recorded in the service record as 04.06.1956 on the basis of a medical assessment conducted in the year 1983 and that any request for modification of the same at the verge 5 of retirement is barred in view of the Certified Standing Orders as well as the settled principles of law governing such matters. This Court is unable to accept the said contention. The material placed on record clearly indicates that the entry of date of birth in the service record was not founded upon any documentary evidence but upon a mere medical estimation of age. On the other hand, the record of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, which is a statutory record, reflects the date of birth of the respondent as 20.11.1963. The said entry is not shown to have been made unilaterally by the respondent but is a record maintained in the ordinary course of statutory compliance. The same also finds corroboration from other independent documents brought on record before the authority. The distinction between a case where an employee seeks alteration of an admitted date of birth at the end of service and a case where correction of an erroneous entry is sought on the basis of reliable documentary record must be kept in mind. The present case falls in the latter category.
9. The learned Deputy Labour Commissioner, after appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced before him, has recorded a finding of fact with regard to the correct date of birth of the respondent and the consequent premature retirement. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, does not find any perversity or illegality in the said finding warranting interference. The plea of bar contained in the Certified Standing Orders is also of no assistance to the petitioner inasmuch as the respondent is not seeking a belated change but correction of an entry which stood unsupported by any authentic proof from its inception. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the writ 6 petition.
10. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaun Region, Haldwani, is affirmed. The petitioner shall comply with the directions contained in the said order within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 27.02.2026 AK 7