Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16028
1 WP-27209-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 30th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27209 of 2022
RAGHUWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.K. Sharma - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati- learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order
dated 16/11/2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby he has been made to retire w.e.f.
30/11/2022 allegedly on attaining the age of 62 years.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner
was initially engaged on daily wages in January' 1982 and was subsequently
classified as permanent employee w.e.f. 02.09.1982. The petitioner retired
with the same status by the impugned order.
3. Initially when the petitioner's service book was prepared, his date
of birth was mentioned therein as 08/08/1962. Therefore, according to this
date of birth, he would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation of
62 year in August' 2024. However, in the year 2000, the petitioner was asked
to appear before the medical board. The medical board gave its report on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16028
2 WP-27209-2022
22/05/2000 (Annexure R/1) wherein the age of the petitioner is stated to be
40 years. Based upon this medical report, the respondent department has
changed the petitioner's date of birth in his service book from 08/08/1962 to
08/08/1960. Based upon, this changed date of birth, the petitioner was made
to retire w.e.f. 30/11/2022.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that right from the
inception in service, the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as
08/08/1962. No information was given to the petitioner before making new
entry in his service book and the petitioner came to know about this change
of his date of birth only when was retired vide impugned communication. He
further submitted that there was no occasion for changing his date of birth in
the service book inasmuch as there was no dispute in that regard. He,
therefore, submitted that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service up
to August' 2024 and his retirement w.e.f. 30/11/2022 is illegal.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State supported the impugned action and submitted that since
there is no material to support the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded
initially in the service book, he was asked to appear before the medical
board. The petitioner appeared before the medical board which gave its
report on 22/05/2000 certifying that the petitioner is 40 years of age. Based
upon this medical report, the date of birth of the petitioner was changed in
the service book to 08/08/1960. The learned counsel for the
respondents/State further submitted that the change in the service book of the
petitioner was made in the year 2000 and the petitioner did not raise any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16028
3 WP-27209-2022
objection in this regard. Therefore, the petition filed in the year 2022 suffers
from the defect of delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. He,
therefore, prays for dismissal of this petition.
6. Considered the arguments and perused the records.
7. Undisputedly, the date of birth of the petitioner was initially
entered in the service book as 08/08/1962. There is no explanation offered by
the respondents as to what was the occasion for examining the petitioner by
the medical board when there as no dispute with regard to his date of birth.
Further, from the report of the medical board filed as Annexure R/1, it is
gathered that the petitioner's age was certified to be 40 years based upon his
own statement and also based upon his physical appearance. Apparently, no
test was conducted by the medical board while certifying the age of the
petitioner. Therefore, the change in the date of birth of the petitioner in the
service book is found to be unjustified.
8. The respondents' objection regarding delay and latches on the part
of the petitioner is now needs to be considered. It is seen that the correction
of petitioner's date of birth in his service book was made in the year 2000.
However, nothing is brought on record to show that the petitioner was ever
put to notice about the change of date of birth in his service book. No doubt
the petitioner appeared before the medical board, however that would not be
sufficient to hold that the petitioner was aware about enquiry being made
about his age. Further, the petitioner has filed a copy of service book
(Annexure P/3) which was in his possession. As per this copy, there is no
change in the date of birth of the petitioner. Meaning thereby, the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16028
4 WP-27209-2022
birth of the petitioner was not changed in the copy retained with the
petitioner and made only in the copy which was retained with the
department. Apart from the above, there is no other document available on
record to show that any notice was given to the petitioner while changing his
date of birth. Consequently, the change of petitioner's date of birth made by
the respondent department in the service book is found to be unilateral and is
thus illegal and unjustified.
9. The learned counsel for respondents placed reliance upon a
judgment of coordinate bench of this Court rendered in the case of Smt.
Urmila vs. State of M.P. & ors. passed in W.P. No.25756 of 2022 in support
of his submissions. If the facts of that case are examined, it is gathered that
the petitioner there was found to be guilty of suppression of material
document inasmuch as she intentionally filed first page of service book only.
Further, the date of birth in that case was changed based upon report of
medical board. In the case in hand, even though there is report of medical
board, however, it is found that no test was performed on petitioner in order
to find out his age and the age was certified only on petitioner's statement
and his physical appearance. From the discussion of fact, it has been found
that the petitioner was not having knowledge about change of his date of
birth in the service book. Therefore, the judgment rendered in the case
of Smt. Urmila does not help the respondents.
10. In view of the discussion made above, the order, dated
16/11/2022, (Annexure-P/1) whereby the petitioner was made to retire w.e.f.
30/11/2022 is set-aside. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to continue in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16028
5 WP-27209-2022
service up to 31/08/2024 treating his date of birth to be 08.08.1962. The
petitioner shall be deemed to be in service upto 31/08/2024 and is entitled
for the consequential benefits.
11. With the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and disposed off.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
rahul
