[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Revaben Nathabhai Damor vs District Development Officer on 1 December, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16143 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
REVABEN NATHABHAI DAMOR
Versus
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
BHAVIN B THAKAR(9371) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MITUL GAUTAM ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker
appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam appearing for the
respondent-State.
2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
for the respective parties, the matter is taken up
for final hearing. Hence, RULE. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf
of the respondent-State.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs: :-
"A. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the
writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble
court and be pleased to quash and set
aside the communication issued by the
respondent no.2 dated 18.09.2025 which is
Annexed at Annexure-B to the petition and
be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities to consider the retirement age
of the petitioner as 31.12.2030.
B. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the
writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble
court and be pleased to quash and set-
aside the merit list dated 16.09.2025 at
Annexure-D to the petition for appointment
of candidates and quash and set-aside any
further recruitment process initiated by
respondent no.2 to fill the vacancy that
would allegedly arise upon the
petitioner's premature retirement on the
aforesaid erroneous date.
C. pending admission, hearing and final
disposal of the present petition YOUR
LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to not permanently
retired the petitioner on the basis of her
erroneous retirement date.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
D. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay any
further recruitment initiated by the
respondent no.2 to fill up any vacancy
which may arise on premature retirement of
the petitioner on the basis of erroneous
date, pending admission, hearing and final
disposal of the present petition.
E. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such
other and further reliefs as may be deemed
fit in the interest of justice."
4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker appearing for
the petitioner narrated the facts, which can be
summarized as under:-
4.1 It is the case of the petitioner that her actual
date of birth is 25.12.1972. However, according to
the petitioner, in the physical service record, some
interpolation has taken place in respect of her date
of birth and the same has been changed from
25.12.1972 to 25.12.1968. If the petitioner's date of
birth is considered to be 25.12.1972, she would
retire on 31.12.2030; however, in view of the fact
that her date of birth is considered to be
25.12.1968, she would retire on 31.01.2026, and
therefore the petitioner has approached this Court by
way of the present petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker
submitted that the petitioner joined services as an
Anganwadi Worker on 02.09.1998 with Anganwadi Center
Antlwada-2, Mahisagar, under respondent No. 2, and
according to the petitioner's e-service book, she is
to retire on 31.12.2030. However, the respondents,
by considering the petitioner's retirement date to
be 31.01.2026, have high-handedly initiated a
recruitment process and published a merit list of
candidates on 16.09.2025 to fill up the vacancy that
may arise from the petitioner's retirement, and
therefore the petitioner has preferred the present
petition.
4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker drew the
attention of this Court to the birth certificate of
the petitioner issued on 29.03.2004 i.e six years
after the petitioner's appointment, by the Talati-
cum-Mantri, Group Gram Panchayat, Amthani, Taluka:
Kadana, District: Dahod, whereby the petitioner's
date of birth is mentioned as 25.12.1972 and,
according to the said certificate, the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
registration was 30.12.1972.
4.4 Learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker also
pointed out from the photocopy of the original
service book and submitted that though it bears the
date 25.12.1968 as the petitioner's date of birth,
there is overwriting and interpolation in the said
document to give an impression that the petitioner's
date of birth is 25.12.1968; however, the actual date
of birth of the petitioner is 25.12.1972.
4.5 Learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker also
relied upon a report submitted by the Talati-cum-
Mantri, Group Gram Panchayat, Amthani, whereby, upon
verifying the Birth and Death register, it is stated
that the date of issue of the certificate is
29.03.2004, bearing the seal of District: Dahod,
which is improper. According to the report submitted
by the Talati-cum-Mantri, in the birth certificate
the date of registration is shown as 30.12.1972,
whereas in the birth and death register the date of
registration is stated to be 25.12.1972. In the birth
certificate, the registration number is 39, whereas
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
in the birth and death register the registration
number is stated to be 2. As per the report, the
birth register ought to contain the signature of the
competent officer, which is missing while registering
the birth. Similarly, it was also observed that this
appears to be a case of duplication, as there are
discrepancies stated above. Prima facie, it seems
that the certificate produced by the petitioner does
not bear the signature of the competent authority,
and he therefore submitted his opinion accordingly.
4.6 According to learned advocate Mr. Bhavin
Thaker, in view of such discrepancies, when the
physical service book carries certain overwriting and
interpolation, and as per the e-service book the
petitioner's date of retirement is shown to be
December 2030, the benefit should go to the
petitioner, and this Court is required to direct the
respondents to retire the petitioner on 30th December
2030 and not in the year 2026. He, therefore, prayed
for the allowing the petition.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
Gautam, appearing for the respondent-State, submitted
that the petitioner has been in service since 1998,
and it is at the fag end of her career that she came
to know that she will now retire in the year 2026 on
the basis of her date of birth being considered as
1968. She has preferred this petition belatedly,
which may not be entertained by the Court.
5.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Mitul Gautam relied upon a Government GR dated
08.05.1978, which provides that upon preparation of
the service book before the end of the probation
period, any request for change of date of birth is
required to be entertained and not thereafter, and in
case any such application is made thereafter, such
change may take place only upon providing
satisfactory material.
5.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Mitul Gautam thereafter drew the attention of the
Court to the Government GR dated 10th August 1983,
whereby it is provided that such request for change
of date of birth can be entertained either before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
probation period is over or within five years after
the employee is made permanent, and the same provides
for a certain checklist as well. That GR also
specifies certain matters which are required to be
taken into consideration.
5.3 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Mitul Gautam thereafter relied upon Rule 40 of the
Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2002, and by relying upon Rule 40,
which deals with the procedure for recording events
and the date of birth in the service book, submitted
that Rule 2(g) provides that after completion of five
years of continuous service, no such request for
change of date of birth shall be considered.
5.4 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Mitul Gautam relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat versus
Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi dated 19.07.2006 in Civil
Appeal No. 3043 of 2006, reported in 2006 (6) SCC
537, and by relying upon the aforesaid decision,
submitted that after five years of continuous
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
service, such a request for change of date of birth
should not be entertained by the Court, referring to
the relevant portion of paragraph No. 10 of the
judgment. It was also pointed out that any
application for correction of date of birth should
not be dealt with by the Court, Tribunal, or the High
Court considering only the public servant concerned,
as the same may have a chain reaction, affecting
others waiting for years below him for their
respective promotions. It is also pointed out from
paragraph No. 10 that in many cases, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that it is often part of a
strategy on the part of a public servant to approach
the Court or Tribunal on the eve of their retirement,
questioning the correctness of entries regarding
their date of birth in the service books, and
therefore, the Court or Tribunal must be slow in
granting any relief or in continuing them in service
unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable
character is produced before the Court. By relying
upon the aforesaid decision, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam submitted that in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
the instant case, the petitioner's claim regarding
the correctness of her date of birth was raised for
the first time in the year 2025, after putting in 27
years of service, and just one month before her
retirement on 31.01.2026.
5.5 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Mitul Gautam lastly relied upon a recent decision of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 15.07.2025
in the case of Hurmatben Chhotekhan Baloch versus
State of Gujarat and others in Special Civil
Application No. 14887 of 2019, and by relying upon
the aforesaid decision, submitted that in a similar
set of facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had
dismissed the claim of the petitioner. He, therefore,
prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties
and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I
find that the petitioner was employed in the year
1998 and remained idle for all these 27 years up to
2025. It is only when the petitioner is due to retire
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
on 31.01.2026 that she has approached this Court, and
therefore, such an approach by the petitioner, which
is not appreciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
cannot be considered, as the petitioner has not
agitated the issue regarding any such discrepancy
promptly. Even the Government GR regarding the change
of date of birth provides that such an application
can be made either before the probation period ends
or within a period of five years upon acquiring the
status of a permanent employee, and only in such
cases is the application required to be entertained.
In the instant case, though the petitioner joined the
services in the year 1998, the certificate regarding
her date of birth was produced only in 2004, i.e.
after a period of six years. Moreover, there are
discrepancies in the certificate, as stated in the
foregoing paragraph while recording the submissions
of learned advocates for the parties, which also
indicate that such an application for change of date
of birth was not made within the time prescribed by
the State Government by way of GRs dated 08.05.1978
and 10.08.1983, and in consonance with Rule 40 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2002.
7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
decision in the case of State of Gujarat versus Vali
Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi dated 19.07.2006 in Civil
Appeal No. 3043 of 2006, reported in 2006 (6) SCC
537, in paragraphs 8 to 15, has observed as under:-
"8. It is to be noted that there are
several rules governing request to change
the date of birth. One of them is Rule 171
of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959
(in short the 'Rules'). This Rule clearly
provides that the request made for
alteration of date of birth should not be
entertained after the preparation of the
service book of the Government servant and
in any event not after the completion of
the probation period or after 5 years of
continuous service whichever was earlier.
The said rule categorically provides that
once an entry of age or date of birth has
been made in the service book, no
alteration of the entry afterwards should
be allowed unless it is shown that the
entry was due to want of care on the part
of some person other than individual in
question or is an obvious clerical error.
9. Normally, in public service, with
entering into the service, even the date
of exit, which is said as date of
superannuation or retirement, is also
fixed. That is why the date of birth is
recorded in the relevant register or
service book, relating to the individual
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
concerned. This is the practice prevalen
in all services, because every service has
fixed the age of retirement, it is
necessary to maintain the date of birth in
the service records. But, of late a trend
can be noticed, that many public servants,
on the eve of their retirement raise a
dispute about their records, by either
invoking the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or by filing
applications before the concerned
Administrative Tribunals, or even filing
suits for adjudication as to whether the
dates of birth recorded were correct or
not.
10. Most of the States have framed
statutory rules or in absence thereof
issued administrative instructions as to
how a claim made by a public servant in
respect of correction of his date of birth
in the service record is to be dealt with
and what procedure is to be followed. In
many such rules a period has been
prescribed within which if any public
servant makes any grievance in respect of
error in the recording of his date of
birth, the application for that purpose
can be entertained. The sole object of
such rules being that any such claim
regarding correction, of the date of birth
should not be made or entertained after
decades, especially on the eve of
superannuation of such public servant. In
the case of State of Assam v. Daksha
Prasad Deka (1970 (3) SCC 624), this Court
said that the date of the compulsory
retirement "must in our judgment, be
determined on the basis of the service
record and not on what the respondent
claimed to be his date of birth, unless
the service record is first corrected
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
consistently with the appropriate
procedure." In the case of Government of
Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagreev Sarma (1990
(2) SCC 682) the A.P. Public Employment
(Recording and alteration of Date of
Birth) Rules, 1984 were considered. The
public servant concerned had claimed
correction of his date of birth with
reference to the births and deaths
register maintained under the Births,
Deaths and Marriages Registration Act,
1886. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal corrected the date of birth as
claimed by the petitioner before the
Tribunal, in view of the entry in the
births and deaths register ignoring the
rules framed by the State Government
referred to above. It was inter alia
observed by this Court:
"The object underlying Rule 4 is to avoid
repeated applications by a government
employee for the correction of his date of
birth and with that end in view it
provides that a government servant whose
date of birth may have been recorded in
the service register in accordance with
the rules applicable to him and if that
entry had become final under the rules
prior to the commencement of 1984 Rules,
he will not be entitled for alteration of
his date of birth."
In Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B)
Division, Orissa and Ors. v Rangadhar
Mallik (1993 Supp.(1) SCC 763), Rule 65 of
the Orissa General Finance Rules, was
examined which provides that
representation made for correction of date
of birth near about the time of
superannuation shall not be entertained.
The respondent in that case was appointed
on November 16, 1968. On September 9,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
1986, for the first time, he made a
representation for changing his date of
birth in his service register. The
Tribunal issued a direction as sought for
by the respondent. This Court set aside
the Order of the Tribunal saying that the
claim of the respondent that his date of
birth was November 27, 1938 instead of
November 27, 1928 should not have been
accepted on basis of the documents
produced in support of the said claim,
because the date of birth was recorded as
per document produced by the said
respondent at the time of his appointment
and he had also put his signature in the
service roll accepting his date of birth
as November 27, 1928. The said respondent
did not take any step nor made any
representation for correcting his date of
birth till September 9, 1986. In case of
Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993 (2)
SCC 162) the position in law was again re-
iterated and it was observed:
"A Government servant who has declared his
age at the initial stage of the employment
is, of course, not precluded from making a
request later on for correcting his age.
It is open to a civil servant to claim
correction of his date of birth, if he is
in possession of irrefutable proof
relating to his date of birth as different
from the one earlier recorded and even if
there is no period of limitation
prescribed for seeking correction of date
of birth, the Government servant must do
so without any unreasonable delay."
An application for correction of the date
of birth should not be dealt with by the
Courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping
in view only the public servant concerned.
It need not be pointed out that any such
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
direction for correction of the date of
birth of the public servant concerned has
a chain reaction, inasmuch as others
waiting for years, below him for their
respective promotions are affected in this
process. Some are likely to suffer
irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because
of the correction of the date of birth,
the officer concerned, continues in
office, in some cases for years, within
which time many officers who are below him
in seniority waiting for their promotion,
may loose the promotion for ever. Cases
are not unknown when a person accepts
appointment keeping in view the date of
retirement of his immediate senior. This
is certainly an important and relevant
aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by
the Court or the Tribunal while examining
the grievance of a public servant in
respect of correction of his date of
birth. As such, unless a clear case on the
basis of materials which can be held to be
conclusive in nature, is made out by the
respondent and that too within a
reasonable time as provided in the rules
governing the service, the Court or the
Tribunal should not issue a direction or
make a declaration on the basis of
materials which make such claim only
plausible. Before any such direction is
issued or declaration made, the Court or
the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that
there has been real injustice to the
person concerned and his claim for
correction of date of birth has been made
in accordance with the procedure
prescribed, and within the time fixed by
any rule or order. If no rule or order has
been framed or made, prescribing the
period within which such application has
to be filed, then such application must be
within at least a reasonable time. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
applicant has to produce the evidence in
support of such claim, which may amount to
irrefutable proof relating to his date of
birth. Whenever any such question arises,
the onus is on the applicant, to prove
about the wrong recording of his date of
birth, in his service book. In many cases
it is a part of the strategy on the part
of such public servants to approach the
Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their
retirement, questioning the correctness of
the entries in respect of their date of
birth in the service books. By this
process, it has come to the notice of this
Court that in many cases, even if
ultimately their applications are
dismissed, by virtue of interim orders,
they continue for months, after the date
of superannuation. The Court or the
Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in
granting an interim relief or continuation
in service, unless prima facie evidence of
unimpeachable character is produced
because if the public servant succeeds, he
can always be compensated, but if he
fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved
benefit of extended service and thereby
caused injustice to his immediate junior.
11. The position was succinctly stated by
this Court in the above terms in The
Secretary and Commissioner Home Department
and Ors. v. R. Kirubakaran (JT 1993 (5) SC
404).
12. As observed by this Court in State of
Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan (1994 (6)
SCC 302) and State of Orissa and Ors. v.
Ramanath Patnaik (1997 (5) SCC 181) when
the entry was made in the service record
and when the employee was in service he
did not make any attempt to have the
service record corrected, any amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
evidence produced subsequently is of no
consequence. The view expressed in R.
Kirubakaran's case (supra) was adopted.
13. The above position was also noticed in
State of U.P. and Others v. Gulaichi
(Smt.) (2003 (6) SCC 483).
14. In the instant case the Rules referred
to above clearly indicate the permissible
area for correction of date of birth. In
view of the specific provisions made, it
was not permissible to effect any change.
15. The inevitable conclusion is that the
order of learned Single Judge and impugned
judgment of the Division Bench affirming
it cannot be sustained. Both the orders
are set aside. The appeal is allowed but
without any orders as to costs."
8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also
taken a similar view by considering the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. versus Shyam Kishore Singh dated
05.02.2020, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 , and the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were
reproduced in the aforesaid judgment. Paragraph No.
5.5 of the said decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court dated 15.07.2025 in the case of Hurmatben
Chhotekhan Baloch versus State of Gujarat and others
in Special Civil Application No. 14887 of 2019, reads
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
as under:
"5.5 At this stage, it would be
fruitful to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. (supra), more
particularly paras : 8 to 12 thereof,
which read as under.
"8. This Court has consistently held that
the request for change of the date of
birth in the service records at the fag
end of service is not sustainable. The
learned Additional Solicitor General has
in that regard relied on the decision in
the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr.
vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors.
(2010) 14 SCC 423 wherein a series of the
earlier decisions of this Court were taken
note and was held as hereunder:
"16. The learned counsel for the appellant
has placed reliance on the judgment of
this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [(2005) 11
SCC 465 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 96] . In this
case, this Court has considered a number
of judgments of this Court and observed
that the grievance as to the date of birth
in the service record should not be
permitted at the fag end of the service
career.
17. In another judgment in State of
Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal
[(2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106]
relief was denied to the government
employee on the ground that he sought
correction in the service record after
nearly 30 years of service. While setting
aside the judgment of the High Court, this
Court observed that the High Court ought
not to have interfered with the decision
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
after almost three decades.
19. These decisions lead to a different
dimension of the case that correction at
the fag end would be at the cost of a
large number of employees, therefore, any
correction at the fag end must be
discouraged by the court. The relevant
portion of the judgment in Home Deptt.v.
R. Kirubakaran [1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 :
1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (1994) 26 ATC 828]
reads as under: (SCC pp. 158- 59, para 7)
"7. An application for correction of the
date of birth [by a public servant cannot
be entertained at the fag end of his
service]. It need not be pointed out that
any such direction for correction of the
date of birth of the public servant
concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch
as others waiting for years, below him for
their respective promotions are affected
in this process. Some are likely to suffer
irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because
of the correction of the date of birth,
the officer concerned, continues in
office, in some cases for years, within
which time many officers who are below him
in seniority waiting for their promotion,
may lose their promotion forever. ...
According to us, this is an important
aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by
the court or the tribunal while examining
the grievance of a public servant in
respect of correction of his date of
birth. As such, unless a clear case on the
basis of materials which can be held to be
conclusive in nature, is made out by the
respondent, the court or the tribunal
should not issue a direction, on the basis
of materials which make such claim only
plausible. Before any such direction is
issued, the court or the tribunal must be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
fully satisfied that there has been real
injustice to the person concerned and his
claim for correction of date of birth has
been made in accordance with the procedure
prescribed, and within the time fixed by
any rule or order. ... the onus is on the
applicant to prove the wrong recording of
his date of birth, in his service book."
9. This Court in fact has also held that
even if there is good evidence to
establish that the recorded date of birth
is erroneous, the correction cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. In that
regard, in State of M.P. vs. Premlal
Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 it is held as
hereunder;
"8. It needs to be emphasised that in
matters involving correction of date of
birth of a government servant,
particularly on the eve of his
superannuation or at the fag end of his
career, the court or the tribunal has to
be circumspect, cautious and careful while
issuing direction for correction of date
of birth, recorded in the service book at
the time of entry into any government
service. Unless the court or the tribunal
is fully satisfied on the basis of the
irrefutable proof relating to his 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 court
or the tribunal should be loath to issue a
direction for correction of the service
book. Time and again this Court has
expressed the view that if a government
servant makes a request for correction of
the recorded date of birth after lapse of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
a long time of his induction into the
service, particularly beyond the time
fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as
a matter of right, the correction of his
date of birth, even if he has good
evidence to establish that the recorded
date of birth is clearly erroneous. No
court or the tribunal can come to the aid
of those who sleep over their rights (see
Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2
SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24
ATC 92] ).
12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the
delay of over two decades in applying for
the correction of date of birth is ex
facie fatal to the case of the respondent,
notwithstanding the fact that there was no
specific rule or order, framed or made,
prescribing the period within which such
application could be filed. It is trite
that even in such a situation such an
application should be filed which can be
held to be reasonable. The application
filed by the respondent 25 years after his
induction into service, by no standards,
can be held to be reasonable, more so when
not a feeble attempt was made to explain
the said delay. There is also no substance
in the plea of the respondent that since
Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does
not prescribe the time-limit within which
an application is to be filed, the
appellants were duty-bound to correct the
clerical error in recording of his date of
birth in the service book."
10. The learned Additional Solicitor
General has also relied upon the decision
of this Court in the case of Factory
Manager Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. Laxman
in SLP (C) Nos.2592-2593/2018 dated
25.04.2019 wherein the belated claim was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
not entertained. Further reliance is also
placed on the decision of this Court in
the case of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. &
Ors. vs. Ram Samugh Yadav & Ors. in
C.A.No.7724 of 2011 dated 27.05.2019
wherein this Court has held as hereunder:
"Nothing is on record that in the year
1987 when the opportunity was given to
Respondent No.1, to raise any
issue/dispute regarding the service record
more particularly his date of birth in the
service record, no such issue/dispute was
raised. Only one year prior to his
superannuation, Respondent No.1 raised the
dispute which can be said to be belated
dispute and therefore, the learned Single
Judge as well as the employer was
justified in refusing to accept such an
issue.
The Division Bench of the High Court has,
therefore, committed a grave error in
directing the appellant to correct the
date of birth of Respondent No.1 in the
service record after number of years and
that too when the issue was raised only
one year prior to his superannuation and
as observed hereinabove no dispute was
raised earlier."
11. The learned counsel for the
respondent, on the other hand, has relied
upon the decision of this Court relating
the very same employer namely, the
appellants herein in the case of Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. vs. Chhota Birasa
Uranw (2014) 12 SCC 570 wherein this Court
with reference to the earlier decisions of
this Court has upheld the order of the
High Court wherein a direction had been
issued to effect the change in the date of
birth. Having perused the same we are of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
the opinion that the said decision cannot
render assistance to the respondent
herein. This is for the reason that in the
said case it was taken note that in 1987
on implementation of the National Coal
Wage Agreement (iii) was put into
operation for stabilising the service
records of the employees and all its
employees were provided a chance to
identify and rectify the discrepancies in
the service records by providing them a
nomination form containing details of
their service records. In the cited case
the respondent (employee) therein had
noticed the inconsistencies in the records
regarding his date of birth, date of
appointment, father's name and permanent
address and availed the opportunity to
seek correction. Though he had sought for
the correction of the errors, the other
discrepancies were set right but the date
of birth and the date of appointment had
however remained unchanged and it is in
that view the employee had again raised a
dispute regarding the same and the
judicial remedy was sought wherein the
benefit was extended to him.
12. On the other hand, in the instant
case, as on the date of joining and as
also in the year 1987 when the respondent
had an opportunity to fill up the
Nomination Form and rectify the defect if
any, he had indicated the date of birth as
04.03.1950 and had further reiterated the
same when Provident Fund Nomination Form
was filled in 1998. It is only after more
than 30 years from the date of his joining
service, for the first time in the year
2009 he had made the representation.
Further the respondent did not avail the
judicial remedy immediately thereafter,
before retirement. Instead, the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16143/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
retired from service on 31.03.2010 and
even thereafter the writ petition was
filed only in the year 2014, after four
years from the date of his retirement. In
that circumstance, the indulgence shown to
the respondent by the High Court was not
justified."
9. In view of the above, as the petitioner has
approached this Court after 27 years of joining the
services, and though the prayer is drafted in a
different manner, the resultant effect, if granted,
would be to allow the petitioner to serve for four
more years by treating her date of birth as
25.12.1972 instead of 25.12.1968. Such an act on the
part of the petitioner is impermissible, not only in
view of the Government GRs but also in light of the
judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as well as this Court. Therefore, the petition is
required to be dismissed, and the same is dismissed.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
