Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Shankar Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 July, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34453
1 WP-24443-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 28th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 24443 of 2025
SHIV SHANKAR YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - G.A. for the State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by order
dated 31.7.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 5 by which the
petitioner has been superannuated.
2) It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in the service
record, the date of birth of the petitioner is incorrectly mentioned , therefore,
the petitioner made a representation on 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-3)
informing the Authority that the date of birth of the petitioner was incorrectly
mentioned as 9.1.1962 in place of 9.1.1965. It is further contended that the
date of birth of the petitioner is correctly mentioned in Aadhar Card,
Character Certificate and School Leaving Certificate contained in Annexure
P-5 and therefore, there was apparent mistake in recording the date of birth
of the petitioner in the service book. It is further contended that the petitioner
eventually was superannuated w.e.f. 31.7.2024 (Annexure P-6). After his
retirement also, the petitioner submitted representations, which are contained
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34453
2 WP-24443-2025
in Annexures P-7, P-8 and P-9.
3 ) The counsel for the State submits that the petition is liable to be
dismissed, inasmuch as, the petitioner at no point of time during the entire
service career made any request for correction of date of birth and eventually
made representation on 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) whereas he was to be
superannuated w.e.f. 31.7.2024. It is submitted that the correction at the fag
end of service career is not permissible.
4) No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
5 ) Heard submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused
the record.
6) On perusal of record, it reflects that it is a case where the petitioner
having worked as Chowkidar in the Public health Engineering Department,
ultimately retired on 31.7.2024 (Annexure P-6). According to the petitioner,
he made representation for correction in his date of birth on 12.10.2022
(Annexure P-3). Prior to the said representation, in the entire service career,
the petitioner never made any application seeking correction of his date of
birth in his service record. The petitioner was an inductee of the year 1985 as
initial date of his appointment was 1.7.1985 and thus, for a prolong period of
more than 37 years, the petitioner was sitting tight over the matter and made
representation just at the eve of his retirement as he was to be superannuated
on 31.7.2024. The change of date of birth at the fag end of service career is
impermissible and this aspect has been considered by the Supreme Court in
the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh - (2020) 3 SCC
411, wherein it has been held in paragraphs 9, 10 & 11 as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34453
3 WP-24443-2025
9. 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 State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath
Sitaram Kamble [State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath
Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423 : (2011) 2 SCC
(L&S) 582] wherein a series of the earlier decisions of
this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder :
(SCC pp. 428-29, paras 16-17 & 19)
"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
[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 [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 [Pitamber Dutt Semwal v. State of
U.P., 1999 SCC OnLine All 1610 : 2000 All LJ 2341]
of the High Court, this Court observed that the High
Court ought not to have interfered with the decision
after almost three decades.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34453
4 WP-24443-2025
***
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 [Home Deptt. v. R.
Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC
(L&S) 449] 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
promotions 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
fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the
person concerned and his claim for correction of date of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34453
5 WP-24443-2025
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.'"
10. 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. v.
Premlal Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas,
(2011) 9 SCC 664 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 574] it is held
as hereunder : (SCC pp. 667 & 669, paras 8 & 12)
"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 a
long time of his induction into the service, particularly
beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34453
6 WP-24443-2025
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 [Union
of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993
SCC (L&S) 375] ).
***
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."
11. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also
relied upon the decision of this Court in Kirloskar Bros.
Ltd. v. Laxman [Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Laxman, (2020)
3 SCC 419] dated 25-4-2019 wherein the belated claim
was not entertained. Further reliance is also placed on
the decision of this Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v.
Ram Samugh Yadav [Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Ram
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34453
7 WP-24443-2025
Samugh Yadav, (2020) 3 SCC 421] dated 27-5-2019
wherein this Court has held as hereunder : (SCC p. 422,
paras 6-7)
"6. Nothing is on record that in the year 1987 when the
opportunity was given to Respondent 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 1 raised the dispute which
can be said to be belated dispute and therefore, the
learned Single Judge [Ram Samujh Jadav v. Coal India
Ltd., WP No. 215 of 2006, order dated 28-8-2007 (Cal)]
as well as the employer was justified in refusing to
accept such an issue.
7. The Division Bench of the High Court [Ram Samujh
Yadav v. Coal India Ltd. APO No. 334 of 2009, order
dated 6-10-2010 (Cal)] has, therefore, committed a
grave error in directing the appellant to correct the date
of birth of Respondent 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."
7 ) In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any ground to
make interference in the impugned order. The petition, being devoid of
merits, is hereby dismissed. No costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
