Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gomti Adiwasi / Gaud vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 September, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42833
1 WP-34290-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 4 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 34290 of 2025
GOMTI ADIWASI / GAUD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pravesh Naveriya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shikha Sharma - Govt. Advocate for State.
ORDER
The counsel for petitioner contends that it is a case where grievance
of the petitioner is for correction of her date of birth. The said grievance has
been highlighted by the petitioner after having been superannuated way-back
on 31-12-2024. According to the counsel for petitioner the petitioner has
been wrongly superannuated and she is aged about 57 years, as she was born
in 1968. The petitioner is not in possession of her mark-sheet, however,
other grounds suggest that the petitioner is aged about 57 years. Adhar Card
of the petitioner has been taken note of in order to retire the petitioner.
2. The counsel for State has opposed the prayer.
3. Having considered the submissions, the record reflects that it is a
case where after retirement the petitioner is disputing her date of birth, which
is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case
of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42833
2 WP-34290-2025
411 wherein the Apex Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 ruled thus :
"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 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.
XXX
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 in office, in
some cases for years, within which time many officers who are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42833
3 WP-34290-2025
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 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] ).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42833
4 WP-34290-2025
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."
4 . 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
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].
5. Resultantly, this Court does not find any merit in the petition,
hence, dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
