Rilu Naik vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3162 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rilu Naik vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 7 April, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

              W.P.(C ) No.29942 of 2023

 In the matter of an application under Article-226 &
 227 of the Constitution of India
                       ..................

Rilu Naik                                                        Petitioner
                                             ....

                                  -versus-


State of Odisha & Others                     ....         Opposite Parties


             For Petitioner             :         Mr. J.R. Dash, Adv.

            For Opp. Parties             :    M/s. S.P. Das,
                                              Addl. Standing Counsel
                                              Mr. D. Patnaik, Adv.
                                                (for O.P. No.3)



  PRESENT:


THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Date of Hearing: 07.04.2026 & Date of Judgment:07.04.2026
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -

 Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

// 2 //

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter

alia with the following prayer:-

It is, therefore prayed that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice of Rule-NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order of superannuation as per Annexure-6 shall not be quashed and the petitioner shall not be re-instated in service with all benefits and upon their showing no cause or insufficient cause make the said Rule absolute and pass any other appropriate order for ends of justice;

And pass such other order/orders or to issue such other writ/writs, as would afford, complete relief to the petitioner;

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

while assailing the impugned order dated

13.06.2023, so passed by Opp. Party No.3, contended

that Petitioner entered into service as a DLR in the

establishment of Opp. Party No.3, on 02.08.1993. It

is contended that while entering into such

engagement as a DLR in the establishment of Opp.

Party No.3, Petitioner indicated his date of birth by

filing a self declaration as 14.05.1975.

4.1. It is further contended that even though

Petitioner was allowed to continue as a DLR in the

// 3 //

establishment of Opp. Party No.3, with effect from

from 02.08.1993 and he was not regularized on the

face of the communication issued under Annexure-3,

wherein the date of birth of the Petitioner was taken

as 14.05.1975, Petitioner instead of being regularized

in terms of Order dated 30.09.2021, so passed by

this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30320 of 2021, was brought

over to the Work Charged establishment with effect

from 11.09.2022, vide order dated 31.05.2023 under

Annexure-5.

4.2. It is contended that Petitioner was allowed to

join in the Work Charged establishment in terms of

the Order issued under Annexure-5 and on the very

next date, he was made to retire from Municipal

service, with effect from 30.09.2022, vide the

impugned order dated 01.06.2023 and by taking the

Date of birth of the Petitioner as 20.03.1955.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

vehemently contended that since basing on the self

declaration given by the Petitioner, his Date of birth

was accepted as 14.05.1975 and the same was also

// 4 //

reflected in the communication issued under

Annexure-3 by taking his Date of birth as

20.03.1955, he could not have been made to retire

with effect from 30.09.2022, vide the impugned order

dated 01.06.2023 under Annexure-6. It is

accordingly, contended that the impugned order

requires interference of this Court and Petitioner be

allowed to continue till he attain the age of

superannuation by taking his date of birth as

14.05.1975, so reflected in Annexure-3.

5. Mr. D.K. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for

Opp. Party No.3 on the other hand made his

submission basing on the stand taken in the counter

affidavit, so filed by Opp. Party No.3.

Basing on the counter affidavit it is contended

that pursuant to the communication issued under

Annexure-3 and while complying the order passed by

this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30320 of 2021, Petitioner

when was directed to produce the documents in

support of his Date of birth, Petitioner produced the

Aadhaar Card, Voter ID Card, and the PAN Card, so

// 5 //

enclosed under Annexure-A/1, in support of his

Date of birth. In all those documents, the Date of

birth of the Petitioner shown as 20.03.1955. It is

accordingly contended that since in the documents

so produced by the Petitioner in support of his date

of birth, the same was shown as 20.03.1955, by

taking the same as his Date of birth, Petitioner was

made to retire w.e.f 30.09.2022, vide order

dt.1.6.2023 under Annexure-6. It is accordingly

contended that since in all the documents produced

by the Petitioner under Annexure-A/1, the Date of

Birth is reflected as 20.03.1995, no illegality or

irregularity can be found with the impugned order. It

is also contended that Petitioner has not filed any

document showing his date of birth as 14.05.1975

and there is no documents showing the Petitioner

having taken any step to correct his date of birth in

any of the documents, so available under Annexure-

A/1.

6. Even though this Court allowed the Petitioner to

file his reply to the counter affidavit with passing of

// 6 //

orders on 31.07.2025, 03.09.2025, 10.11.2025,

21.01.2026 and 30.03.2026, but no reply has been

filed disputing the stand taken in the counter

affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 3 with regard to

the Date of birth of the Petitioner.

7. However, Mr. J.R. Dash, learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioner contended that since

basing on the self declaration, Petitioner's date of

birth was accepted as 14.05.1975 under Annexure-

3,on the face of the documents produced by him

under Annexure-A/1 series, his Date of birth could

not have been taken as 20.03.1955 and thereby

making him to retire with effect from 30.09.2022 vide

the impugned order under Annexure-6. It is also

contended that the date of birth recorded in the

Aadhaar card cannot be held as the actual date of

birth and in support of the same, reliance was place

to the following decisions:

1. Saraswati Devi vs Central Coal Field Ltd.

through its chairman, Ranchi., W.P.(S )

// 7 //

2. Pramila Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No.19295 of 2020, disposed of on 13.01.2026.

3. Saroj & Others Vs. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. & Others, 2024 INSC 816.

4. Sitaram Yadav Vs. Union of India through Assistant General Manager, Food Corporation of India., W.P.(S ) No.3063 of 2021, disposed of on 8th October, 2025

5. Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela Vs. Union of India & Another,R.Civil Application No.16484 of 2022, disposed of on 26.02.2024.

7.1. Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in

the case of Saraswati Devi in para-8 has held as

follows:

8. From the arguments advanced by the parties and documents brought on record, it can comfortably be inferred that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons. (i) Admittedly, petitioner was dismissed from the service in a regular departmental proceeding following the procedures of law.

(ii) As per the records, in Praveshika Certificate, the date of birth has been mentioned as 31.01.1956 and age recorded in the service book is 18.09.1962. Thereafter, petitioner appeared in the matriculation examination in the year 1991 in which his date of birth was recorded as 27.01.1962. The variation in the date of birth clearly shows that petitioner was involved in fraudulent activities and concealed the actual date of birth. The driving license,

// 8 //

PAN Card, Voter Card cannot be treated to be a valid document for considering the date of birth of an employee.

(iii) Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any procedural laches in the proceedings rather a full-fledged enquiry was conducted following the provisions of natural justice by extending the petitioner ample opportunity of being heard. Admittedly, when the order of punishment was affirmed upto the Appellate Authority, this Court refrains itself from interfering with the same.

(iv) The Hon'ble Apex as well as this Court in plethora of judgments has held that when the order of punishment has been affirmed upto the Appellate Authority, the Hon'ble Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from reappraising the evidences led in the departmental proceedings The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 has held thus:

" The High Court does not act as appellant authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to the decision of a case on merit as an appellate authority."

7.2. Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore,

in the case of Pramila in para 12,14,15,16 & 17 has

held as follows:

12. It is trite law that in service matters, the date of birth recorded in official service records enjoys a presumption of correctness, as the same is recorded at the time of entry into service and remains the basis for determination of service tenure, seniority and superannuation. Any challenge to such entry must be raised at the earliest point of time andsupported by unimpeachable evidence.

// 9 //

14. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. & Ors., Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 23939-23940 of 2023), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held as under: "9.6 We find that the Unique Identification Authority of India13, by way of its Circular No.08 of 2023, has stated, in reference to an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology dated 20th December 2018, that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth. This office memorandum dated 20th December, 2018 was taken note of by a learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of India and Ors. Criminal Writ Petition No.3002 of 2022 in its order dated 28th July, 2023."

15. Moreover, In Ram Kripal alias Chirkut v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.13286 of 1981, All. HC the Allahabad High Court ruled that the informal nature of the date of birth recorded in the voter list and voter ID card renders it unreliable for determining the actual date of birth. The relevant excerpt is mentioned hereinbelow:

"22. The evidence being insignificant would not shift the burden on shoulders of the petitioners. There appears to be no reason as to why Smt. Gulabi did not examine any of her relatives in support of her case. The evidentiary value of voter list of the year 1966 and 1973 is also of inconsequential nature. The voter-list is prepared on the statement and particulars furnished by such person. It is in the nature of self serving evidence. It is not safe to place much reliance upon it, in such matters. However, our legal system has always emphasis on value, weight and quality rather than quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witness. Nothing has come on record to connect Smt. Gulabi with the said birth entry.

23. Therefore, on facts at hand, in the absence of evidence to show on what material the entry in the Voters List in the name of the accused was made, a mere production of a copy of the Voters List, though a public document, in terms of

// 10 //

Section 35, was not sufficient to prove the age of the accused."

16. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the present case, it isevident that the Aadhaar Card and Voter Identity Card relied upon by Respondent No.5 cannot be treated as determinative proof of her date of birth. These documents are prepared on the basis of self- declaration and are meant for identification purposes alone. They are neither primary evidence nor statutory proof for determination of age in service matters.

17. It is further significant that the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar Card of Respondent No.5 is 01/01/1964, which is a commonly used approximate date, adopted when authentic proof is not available. Such an approximate entry, by its very nature, lacks evidentiary sanctity and cannot override of service records maintained by the employer.

7.3. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saroj in para

9.4,9.5 & 9.6 of the judgment has held as follows:

9.4 The second aspect is the age of the deceased. The High Court, relied on the age as mentioned in the Aadhar Card of the deceased, i.e., 1 st January, 1969. However, as submitted by the claimant-appellants, the School Leaving Certificate records the date of birth of the deceased to be 7th October, 1970. This will affect the multiplier to be applied. Let us now consider this question.

It has to be noted at the outset that a School Leaving Certificate has been accorded statutory recognition. Sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 20153 reads thus:

"(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining

--

// 11 //

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board..." (Emphasis Supplied) Hereafter "JJ Act"

Whether the Aadhar Card is sufficient proof of a person's age, has come up for consideration before some High Courts, albeit in the context of different statutes. We shall refer to a few instances but, prior to doing so, it is also important to take note of the purpose behind introduction of the Aadhar Scheme. In the Constitution Bench judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (5-J.)4 Dr. A.K. Sikri, J. wrote as hereinbelow extracted, encapsulating the object and purpose of Aadhar:-

"24. Before adverting to the discussion on various issues that have been raised in these petitions, it would be apposite to first understand the structure of the Aadhaar Act and how it operates, having regard to various provisions contained therein. UIDAI was established in the year 2009 by an administrative order i.e. by resolution of the Govt. of India, Planning Commission, vide notification dated January 28, 2009. The object of the establishment of the said Authority was primarily to lay down policies to implement the Unique Identification Scheme (for short the 'UIS') of the Government, by which residents of India were to be provided unique identity number. The aim was to serve this as proof of identity, which is unique in nature, as each individual will have only one identity with no chance of duplication. Another objective was that this number could be used for identification of beneficiaries for transfer of benefits, subsidies, services and other purposes. This was the primary reason, viz. to ensure correct identification of targeted beneficiaries for delivery of various subsidies, benefits, services, grants, wages and other social benefits schemes which are funded from the Consolidated Fund of India ...

// 12 //

Summing up the Scheme:

62. The whole architecture of Aadhaar is devised to give unique identity to the citizens of this country. No doubt, a person can have various documents on the basis of which that individual can establish her identity. It may be in the form of a passport, Permanent Account Number (PAN) card, ration card and so on. For the purpose of enrolment itself number of documents are prescribed which an individual can produce on the basis of which Aadhaar card can be issued. Thus, such documents, in a way, are also proof of identity.However, there is a fundamental difference between the Aadhaar card as a means of identity and other documents through which identity can be established. Enrolment for Aadhaar card also requires giving of demographic information as well as biometric information which is in the form of iris and fingerprints. This process eliminates any chance of duplication. ..... It is for this reason the Aadhaar card is known as Unique Identification (UID). Such an identity is unparalleled."

(Emphasis supplied)

9.5 Turning back to the question of whether Aadhar Card can serve as a proof of age, a perusal of some High Court judgments reveals that this question has been considered on quite a few occasions in the context of the JJ Act. Illustratively, in Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P.5 a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when it comes to establishing the age, on a plea of juvenility the age mentioned in the Aadhar Card could not be taken as a conclusive proof in view of Section 94 of the JJ Act. Similar observations have been made in Shahrukh Khan v. State of M.P.6 holding that if the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate is not under challenge, the said document has to be given due primacy. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the context of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, in Navdeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.7 held that Aadhar Cards were not "firm proof of age". Observations similar in nature were also made in Noor Nadia & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.8, Muskan v. State of Punjab9 as well as

// 13 //

several other orders/judgments, in various contexts.

Views aligning with the one referred to above have been taken by the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Parvati Kumari v. State of U.P.10; the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Kumit Kumar v. State of H.P.11 and the High Court of Kerala in Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala12.

9.6 We find that the Unique Identification Authority of India13, by way of its Circular No.08 of 2023, has stated, in reference to an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology dated 20th December 2018, that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth. This office memorandum dated 20th December, 2018 was taken note of by a learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of India And Ors in its order dated 28th July, 2023. The Circular is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:-

.No.HQ-13065/1/2022-AUTH-II HQ/8075 Unique Identification Authority of India (Authentication and Verification Division) UIDAI Headquarter Bangla Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir Gole Market, New Delhi-110 001 Dated 22.12.2023 Circular No- 08 of

Subject: Accepting Aadhar as a proof of Date of Birth (DoB) - regarding.

It has been observed that AUAs/KUAs are considering and accepting Aadhar card / e- Aadhaar as one of the acceptable documents for proof of Date of Birth (DoB).

2. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that, Aadhaar is a unique 12 digit ID issued to a resident after he/she undergoes the enrolment process by submitting his/her demographic and biometric information. Once a resident is assigned an Aadhaar number, it can be used to authenticate the resident through various modes as prescribed under Aadhaar Act, 2016 and Regulations framed there under.

3. At the time of enrolment/updation, UIDAI records DoB as claimed by the resident, on the basis of the documents submitted by them, as

// 14 //

specified under the list of supporting documents for Aadhaar enrolment, provided on the UIDAI website (https://uidai.gov.in/images/commdoc/26 JAN 2023 Aadhar List of documents English.pdf) Further, it is to be noted that Regulations 10(4) and 19A of the Aadhaar (Enrolment and UPDATE) Regulations, 2016, mention that verification of the enrolment and update data shall be performed as provided in Schedule III.

4. In this regard, attention is drawn towards Office Memorandum dated 2-0.12.2018 issued by MeitY through UIDAI, where it has been stated that "An Aadhaar number can be used for establishing identity of an individual subject to authentication and thereby, per se its not a proof of date of birth" (copy enclosed).

5. This aspect of the Aadhar Act, 2016 has been reiterated/highlighted/stressed upon by different High Courts in recent judgments. The most recent one is given by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of State of Maharashtra V/S Unique Identification Authority of India And Ors. dated 28.07.2023 (copy enclosed).

6. In view of the above, it is required that use of Aadhaar, as a proof of DoB needs to be deleted from the list of acceptable documents.

7. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.

7.4. Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in

the case of Sitaram Yadav in para 10 & 12 has held

as follows:

10. Further the Service Book of the petitioner also mentions, date of appointment as 29.08.1985 and his age as 24 years. Thus, the initial entry of date of birth of the petitioner is 2025:JHHC:31003 recorded as 24 years as on 29.08.1985. If this age is calculated and is converted the approximate estimation of his date of birth, will come to 29.08.1961.

12. Considering what has been held above, I hold that the respondents could not have

// 15 //

superannuated the petitioner on 31.10.1960 rather in terms of the first entry made in respect of date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book and other document, he should have superannuated on 31.08.2021. Thus, this writ petition stands allowed.

7.5. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, in

the case of Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela in para 6

& 7 has held as follows:

6. Mr.Pathik Acharya, learned advocate for respondent No.1 submitted that Pension is to be paid through Online application. Since the date of birth was not matching with the date of birth referred in the Adhar Card, pension could not be released. However, he could not dispute that in view of Circular No.08 of 2023 by Unique Identification Authority of India, the date referred in the Adhar Card is not a proof of date of birth and accordingly, Provident Fund Authority has also circulated the said Circular concerning all its department. Therefore, now the date of birth as mentioned in School Leaving Certificate can be taken into consideration and appropriately the pension can be released.

7. Therefore, in view of Circular No.08 of 2023 by Unique Identification Authority of India, accepted by the Provident Fund Authority, office of respondent No.1 is directed to release the pension along with arrears in favour of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the pension along with arrears shall not be paid within a period of two weeks as directed hereinabove, it shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum. With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the

Parties and considering the submission made, this

Court finds that Petitioner entered into service as a

// 16 //

DLR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 on

02.08.1993. As found from Annexure-3, while

forwarding the information with regard to

engagement of DLR and/NMR engaged prior to

12.04.1993, the Date of birth of the Petitioner was

taken as 14.05.1975 and the same was taken as

such, basing on the self declaration given by the

Petitioner.

8.1. However, it is found that while complying the

order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30320 of

2021, Petitioner when was directed to file documents

in support of his age, the documents under

Annexure-A/1 series were filed by him. In all those

documents filed under Annexure-A/1, the Date of

birth of the Petitioner is reflected as 20.03.1955. No

document has been filed by the Petitioner, showing

that his date of birth is 14.05.1975.

8.2. Not only that, no document has been filed

showing any attempt has been made by the

Petitioner to change the date of birth so reflected in

the Aadhar card, Voter ID Card and PAN Card. Since

// 17 //

there is no document available in the case record

showing the Date of birth of the Petitioner as

14.05.1975 and in all those documents available

under Annexure-A/1, so produced by the Petitioner,

the Date of birth is 20.03.1955, this Court finds no

illegality or irregularity with the impugned order

dt.01.06.2023 under Annexure-6 and accordingly is

not inclined to interfere with the same and dismiss

the Writ Petition.

8.3. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioner as per the considered

view of this Court is not applicable to the facts of the

present case. Recording of the date of birth basing on

self declaration cannot take precedence over the date

of birth recorded under Annexure-A/1.

9. The Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Orissa High Court, Cuttack Reason: authenticaiton of orderDated the 7th April, 2026/Sangita Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 16-Apr-2026 14:41:07