Gujarat High Court
Hurmatben Chhotekhan Baloch vs State Of Gujarat on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14887 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
HURMATBEN CHHOTEKHAN BALOCH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR J G VAGHELA(3971) for the Petitioner
MR HENIL M SHAH, AGP for the Respondents - State
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioner with a
prayer to direct the respondents to enter the date of birth
i.e. 09.10.1969 in the service record of the petitioner as per
the birth certificate dated 29.04.2015.
2. Heard learned advocates.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Vaghela for the petitioner has
submitted that the birth certificate is issued by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
competent authority pursuant to the order dated 21.04.2015
passed by the competent Court in Criminal Misc. Application
No.19 of 2015, whereby the date of birth is corrected as
09.10.1969 in the register of births and deaths. He has
submitted that the petitioner has requested the respondent
authorities to seek insertion of that date of birth, which is
not accepted by the authorities and proceeded to examine
herself about the veracity of the claim of the date of birth,
which was not within the domain of the respondents once
the competent Court had directed the birth date to be
registered and the certificate by the authority under the
Registration of of Births and Deaths Act was issued accepting
the direction for insertion of birth date.
3.2 He has further submitted that the petitioner has
been retired from service by order dated 31.01.2024 by
considering the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.01.1964
and not as 09.10.1969. He has submitted that the date of
birth of petitioner may be considered as 09.10.1969 as per
the order of the competent Court in service record. He has
also submitted that this petition may be allowed.
4.1 Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Henil M. Shah for
the respondent authorities has vehemently opposed this
petition. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent authorities and
has submitted that the petitioner had joined the services
with the respondent authorities on 01.02.1985 as daily wager;
at that time, the birth date of the petitioner as recorded in
the service record is mentioned as 01.01.1964; and that the
petitioner has submitted various documents before the
respondent authorities for the purpose of service record,
where the date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1964 and on
the basis of those documents, the respondent authorities have
prepared the service book and accordingly, passed the order
of retirement w.e.f. 31.01.2024; and that the petitioner has
approached the competent Court for correction of birth date
in the year 2015, which is not permissible after many years.
4.2 He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., versus
Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411. He has
submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
5.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by
the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have
perused the documents available on record. From the record,
it transpires that the petitioner has joined the services of the
respondent authorities on 01.02.1985 as daily wager,
indisputably. The services of the petitioner was regularised by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
the respondent authorities vide order dated 21.11.2014 on
various conditions. There is no dispute regarding the same.
The petitioner has submitted various documents before the
respondent authorities for the purpose of service record i.e.
voter ID, Aadhar Card, etc., wherein also the date of birth of
the petitioner is mentioned as 01.01.1964. Pursuant to the
said service record, the respondent authorities have prepared
the service book of the petitioner and consequently, after
reaching the age of superannuation, the petitioner got retired
w.e.f. 31.01.2024.
5.2 After getting the order of regularisation, the
petitioner has approached the competent Court for correction
in birth date from 01.01.1964 to 09.10.1969. The competent
Court has allowed the application and directed the competent
authority to register the birth date of the petitioner as
09.10.1969 in the births and deaths register. The petitioner
has requested the respondent authority to correct the date of
birth in service record pursuant to that order passed by the
competent Court, which is refused by the respondent
authority.
5.3 It is noted that if we consider the date of birth of
the petitioner as 09.10.1969 instead of 01.01.1964, as claiming
by the petitioner vis-a-vis the date of joining i.e. 01.02.1985
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
as evident from the order of regularisation dated 21.11.2014,
which is undisputed, it seems that the petitioner had joined
the services at the age of about 15 years and 4 months. This
is not digestible. The respondent authorities have rightly
refused to accept the claim of the petitioner about the change
of birth date as prayed for.
5.4 Further, the petitioner intends to change the date
of birth after about many years from the joining the services.
The petitioner has joined the service on 01.02.1985
indisputably. The petitioner approached the competent Court
for correction of date of birth in the year 2015 i.e. after
about 30 years from joining of the service. Everywhere, the
petitioner has submitted the proof of date of birth is
01.01.1964 and not 09.10.1969. Even service book was also
prepared on the basis of such documents submitted by the
petitioner. Therefore, there is a huge delay with such
correction is not permissible.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 after almost three decades.
19. These decisions lead to a different dimension
of the case that correction at the fag end would
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 retired from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14887/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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."
6. In view of above, the present petition needs to be
dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
M.H. DAVE
