Shyamraj Gadeshwar vs The General Manager on 9 March, 2026

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18726




                                                              1                              WP-5606-2026
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                   ON THE 9 th OF MARCH, 2026
                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 5606 of 2026
                                                 SHYAMRAJ GADESHWAR
                                                        Versus
                                           THE GENERAL MANAGER AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Ms. Priyal Rahangdale - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                                                  ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book from 25.7.1967 to 25.7.1968.

2 . The counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth mentioned in the service book is 25.7.1967 whereas the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 25.7.1968. It is contended that the issue as regards correction in the date of birth does not require much debate in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1222 of 2023 (Hakim

Singh Gond Vs. State of M.P. & others) decided on 5.12.2024 and W.P. No. 12984 of 2018 (Jagbandan Singh Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others) decided on 3.11.2025. It is further contended that the petitioner has already been superannuated and on account of incorrect entry of his date of birth, the petitioner is not getting the exact amount which is admissible to him under the Provident Fund head. It is further contended that in other

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18726

2 WP-5606-2026 documents, the date of birth of the petitioner is correctly mentioned, which is evident from communication dated 11.7.2025.

3. Heard submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.

4. On perusal of record, it reflects that on the last date of hearing i.e. 26.2.2026, the petitioner sought time to place on record the communication dated 11.7.2025 by which the petitioner had made a request for correction of his date of birth in the P.F. record. Pursuant to the aforesaid interlocutory order, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 4459 of 2026 along with communication dated 11.7.2025. A perusal of the said document reflects that the request for correction in the date of birth was made first time on 11.7.2025. There exists no other document on record to demonstrate that the

petitioner ever disputed the entry pertaining to the date of birth in his service record.

5. The decision relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Jagbandan Singh (supra) stands on different footing, inasmuch as, in the said case, within 7 years from initial induction in service of the employer objection was raised by the employee therein as regards the date of birth. The said contention was appreciated by the Division Bench. However, in the present case, there exists no document that the petitioner in his entire service career at any point of time disputed the entry pertaining to his date of birth.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 has held as under:

"9. This Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18726

3 WP-5606-2026 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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18726

4 WP-5606-2026 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 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.'"

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18726

5 WP-5606-2026

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, 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18726

6 WP-5606-2026 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18726

7 WP-5606-2026 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 . As no change in the date of birth is permissible at the fag end of service career, this Court does not find any ground to entertain this petition.