Madhya Pradesh High Court

Prabhadevi Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2025

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35142




                                                            1                              WP-23593-2025
                            IN        THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                  ON THE 30th OF JULY, 2025
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 23593 of 2025
                                                 PRABHADEVI TIWARI
                                                       Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                                 Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                 Shri Giresh Kakre G.A. appeared for respondent.

                                                                ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking quashment of communication dated 08/04/2025 (Annexure P/4) pertaining to superannuation of the petitioner on 30/11/2025 who is working against the post of Aganwadi Karyakarta.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that date of birth of the petitioner was incorrectly mentioned in MIS Portal. Counsel contends that this factum was not in the knowledge of petitioner and when the petitioner

was served with communication dated 08/04/2025 (Annexure P/4) then only the petitioner came to know that her date of birth was being mentioned by the respondents as 26/11/1963 which is incorrect and the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 01/01/1968.

3. Counsel contends that the said anomaly was not in the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore upon receiving communication dated

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35142

2 WP-23593-2025 08/04/2025 Annexure P/4, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation vide Annexure P/6 dated 28/05/2025, however the respondents are bent upon to superannuate the petitioner while treating her date of birth to be 26/11/1963 which is incorrect.

4. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is making a futile attempt seeking correction in date of birth at the fag end of service career as at the eve of superannuation, change/correction in the date of birth is impermissible.

5. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, particularly contents of paragraph 6 A of the petition clearly reflect that the respondents have fed the date of birth of the petitioner as 26/11/1963 in MIS Portal in the year 2021. Ground 6 B, is dichotomous wherein it is mentioned

by the petitioner that she came to know about the incorrect date of birth when she received notice dated 08/04/2025 (Annexure P/4).

6. It is apparent that the petitioner in the entire service carrer has not made any effort to seek correction in date of birth. Even upon entry in MIS portal way back in the year 2021, the petitioner never made any representation or objection, therefore as the petitioner is to be superannuated in the month of November, 2025, considering her impeding superannuation, this petition has been filed, prima facie as an afterthought. The Apex Court in the case of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 has held in paragraphs 9 and 10 as under:

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35142

3 WP-23593-2025 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35142

4 WP-23593-2025 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 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."

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. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35142

5 WP-23593-2025 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 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.""

7. Thus, seeking correction in the date of birth at the fag end of service career, is impermissible more particularly taking into consideration the petitioner's inaction for a prolong period. [Please See - Karnataka Rural Development Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja reported

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35142

6 WP-23593-2025 in (2021) 12 SCC 27, Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors. Vs. Ram Samugh Yadav and Ors. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 421 and Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162].