Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Mishra vs South Easrtern Coalfield Limited on 3 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
1 WP-20018-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 3 rd OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 20018 of 2019
SURESH KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
SOUTH EASRTERN COALFIELD LIMITED AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Sohgaura - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Anoop Nair - Senior Advocate with Ms. Disha Rohitas -
Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
"(i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
direction to the respondents to correct the date of birth of the
petitioner in the service book and other documents on the basis
of school leaving certificate as well as mark sheet i.e.
01.07.1962.
(ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents authorities to decide the representations and
entered the correct date of birth i.e. 01.07.1962 in place of
22.11.1960 as according to the mark-sheet and implementation
instruction no.76.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit may
also be granted"
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a casual labour
on 24.11.1982 in the respondent-department. He completed his 8 th Class at
the time of entering into services. His date of birth entered by the
respondent-department in the service report is 22.11.1960 which is incorrect
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
2 WP-20018-2019
in terms of the middle school certificate and higher secondary school
certificate though he failed in Class 12th wherein his date of birth is
mentioned as 01.07.1962. The petitioner submitted various representations
dated 06.04.2012, 07.05.2012, 16.03.2015 and 21.02.2017 to the
respondents-authorities but no action has been taken thereon. In terms of the
Annexure P/8, the petitioner was due to retire on 30.11.2020.
3. Petitioner's counsel has pointed out that in terms of Implementation
Instructions No.76(A) which deals with determination of the age at the time
of appointment and (B) thereof which stipulates review determination of date
of birth in respect of existing employees. It is argued that the the petitioner is
making all possible efforts to get his date of birth corrected since from the
year 2012 but till date no action has been taken by the authorities. Under
these circumstances, the respondents-authorities be directed to correct the
date of birth of the petitioner taking note of academic certificates i.e. middle
school certificate and higher secondary school certificate of the petitioner.
4. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed on behalf of the
respondents denying the petition averments. Initial objection has been taken
with respect to alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is contended that the petitioner
entered into the employment on 24.11.1982 and at the relevant time, he
informed his age as 22 years, therefore, his date of birth was calculated as
22.11.1960. No academic document with regard to his date of birth was
submitted by the petitioner at the time of joining. The petitioner approached
the department on 06.04.2012 for correction of date of birth in the service
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
3 WP-20018-2019
record after 30 years from the date of his appointment i.e. 24.11.1982 which
is not permissible, therefore, no relief can be extended to the sleeping
litigants. He has placed reliance upon the judgments passed in the cases of
Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Shyam Kishore Singh, reported in (2020) 3
SCC 411 and Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited vs T.P.
Nataraja, reported in (2021) 12 SCC 27.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. The only issue before this Court is whether the date of birth of the
petitioner entered into the service record can be corrected at a belated stage
or at the fag end of his service career ?
7. It is not disputed that initial appointment of the petitioner in the
respondent-department was made on 24.11.1982. His date of birth was
entered in the service record as 22.11.1960 which is reflected from document
(Annexure R/2). The date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the middle
school certificate and Higher Secondary School Certificate issued by the
Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal is 01.07.1962.
8. The record indicates that the first representation which was made by the
petitioner seeking correction of his date of birth in the service records was
received by the respondent-department on 06.04.2012 (Annexure P/6) i.e.
after 30 years from the date of appointment i.e. 24.11.1982. Thereafter,
similar applications have been filed but no action has been taken by the
respondents-authorities. It has consistently been held that the request for
change of the date of birth in the service records can be denied on the ground
of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
4 WP-20018-2019
service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of
superannuation. Thus, the argument raised by the respondent has force and
substance as the petitioner has not explained why he did not apply
for correction of age earlier.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure
Development Ltd. vs T.P. Nataraja (supra) has held as follows:
"10. Even otherwise and assuming that the reasoning given by
the High Court for the sake of convenience is accepted in that
case also even Respondent 1 --employee was not entitled to
any relief or change of date of birth on the ground of delay and
laches as the request for change of date of birth was made after
lapse of 24 years since he joined the service. At this stage, few
decisions of this Court on the issue of correction of the date of
birth are required to be referred to.
10.1. In Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran [Home Deptt. v. R.
Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449]
, it is observed and held as under :
"7. An application for correction of the date of
birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or
the High Court keeping in view only the public
servant concerned. 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 the promotion for ever."
10.2. 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] in paras 8 and 12, it is observed and held as under
:
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
5 WP-20018-2019
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, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
6 WP-20018-2019
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."
10.3. In LIC v. R. Basavaraju [LIC v. R. Basavaraju, (2016)
15 SCC 781 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 167] , it is observed as
under :
"5. The law with regard to correction of date of
birth has been time and again discussed by this
Court and held that once the date of birth is
entered in the service record, as per the educational
certificates and accepted by the employee, the
same cannot be changed. Not only that, this Court
has also held that a claim for change in date of
birth cannot be entertained at the fag-end of
retirement."
10.4. In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore
Singh [Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh,
(2020) 3 SCC 411 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 535] of which one of
us (A.S. Bopanna, J.) was a party to the Bench has observed
and held in paras 9 & 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
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) 585]
wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this
Court were taken note of and it 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 [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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
7 WP-20018-2019
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] 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 [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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
8 WP-20018-2019
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.
...
11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law
on change of date of birth can be summarised as under:
(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the
relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be
claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and
laches also more particularly when it is made at the fag-end of
service and/or when the employee is about to retire on
attaining the age of superannuation.
12. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions, the application of the respondent for
change of date of birth was liable to be rejected on the ground
of delay and laches also and therefore as such respondent
employee was not entitled to the decree of declaration and
therefore the impugned judgment and order [T.P.
Nataraja v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3510]
passed by the High Court is unsustainable and not tenable at
law."
10. Thus, the purport of the judgment in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure
Development Ltd. v. T.P. Nataraja (supra), is that even if there is a cogent
evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the application
has to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Same is the view taken
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Shyam
Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411.
11. Further, in the case of State of M.P. vs Premlal Shrivas, reported
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10276
9 WP-20018-2019
in (2011) 9 SCC 664, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with situation where
there was no specific rule prescribing the period within which such
application could be filed and ultimately, it is held that even if there is no
such specific rule prescribing time limit, the application made by employee
after 25 years by no standard can be held to be reasonable, more so when not
a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. Relevant observations
made in para 8 and 12 of Premlal Shrivas's case (supra) have been quoted
above.
12. If the aforesaid principle of law is applied to the facts of the present
case, it becomes evident that the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable
relief in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as
the application was filed by him after 30 years from the date of induction into
service. The petitioner was appointed on 24.11.1982 and the first
representation for correction of his date of birth was made on 06.04.2012.
For a period of 30 years, no efforts were made by the petitioner to get his
date of birth corrected. As such, the same suffers from delay and laches
which could not be explained satisfactorily by the petitioner. Under these
circumstances, no relief can be extended to him.
13. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
