Patna High Court
Lal Mohan vs Patna Municipal Corporation Through ... on 8 July, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3037 of 2018
======================================================
Lal Mohan Son of Late Titay, Resident of Village- Kurkuri, P.O. and P.S.-
Phulwarisharif Town and District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Patna Municipal Corporation Through Patna Municipal Commissioner,
Patna.
2. Patna Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.
3. Additional Municipal Commissioner (Establishment) Patna Municipal
Corporation, Patna.
4. Executive Officer, Bankipore Circle, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shashi Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 08-07-2025
Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Learned Counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with
the following reliefs:-
"(i) For quashing of
order bearing Memo No. 3674 dated
11.12.2017
issued under the signature
of Executive officer, Bankipore Circle,
Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna,
whereby and whereunder the earlier
order contained in Memo No. 1678
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
dated 12.12.2014 by which the
petitioner 9 Safai Majdoor of Ward
No. 48 has been made to retire with
retrospective effect from 30.04.2014
has been upheld.
(ii) For a direction on
the respondent to reinstate the
petitioner in service until petitioner
attains the age of 60 years in the light
of Medical Board Report dated
28.02.2014 whereby the age of the
petitioner has been determined in
between 45 to 50 years.
(iii) For any other
relief or reliefs to which the petitioner
is found entitled in the fact and
circumstances of the case."
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is citizen of India. He is an illiterate belongs
to scheduled caste and does not know writing and reading. He
was initially engaged as safai majdoor on daily wage basis in
the year 1983 in Patna Municipal Corporation. Counsel submits
that services of the petitioner was regularised on Class-IV post
of safai majdoor and was allowed pay scale of Class-IV post.
Upon regularization of service, the petitioner was not aware as
to whether his service book was opened or not?
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
that while he was functioning as safai No.48, the Executive
Officer, Bankipore Circle, Patna Municipal Corporation, issued
letter No.2320 dated 17.12.2013 requesting the Civil Surgeon-
cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna, to get the age of the
petitioner determine by Medical Board. The petitioner has
appeared before Medical Board and the Medical Board in its
meeting held on 22.02.2014, opined the age of the petitioner is
in between 45 to 50 years. The report of Medical Board was
forwarded to Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation,
Bankipore Circle, with his letter No.2578 dated 28.02.2014.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner continued to work as safai majdoor, but he
was not paid his salary for the month of November and
December, 2014 and finally an order contained in Memo
No.1678 dated 12.12.2014 was served, intimating that he had
been retired from service with retrospective effect from
30.04.2014. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the
service book it has been mentioned that on 24.04.1989 the
petitioner was 35 years of age and thereby the Corporation
treated the date of birth of the petitioner is 24.04.1954 and upon
attaining the age of 60 years on 30.04.2014 retired the
petitioner. It has been submitted that the order dated 12.12.2014,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
directing the petitioner to retire with retrospective effect has
been issued without issuing notice to the petitioner and is in
complete violation of the principles of nature justice. More
particularly, when by the order of the Executive Officer of the
Municipal Corporation, the age of the petitioner was
determined and according to him, age of the petitioner is 45 to
50 years as on 22.02.2014, date of retirement is 60 years.
Therefore, he is entitled to continue in the service treating his
date of birth as 22.02.1969 and, as such, his date of retirement
shall be February, 2029.
6. Learned Counsel further submits that the
petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order
contained in Memo No.1678 dated 12.12.2014, filed a writ
petition in CWJC No.2914 of 2015 before this Hon'ble Court.
The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated
19.02.2015, directing the Executive Officer, Patna, to consider
the case of the petitioner in the light of the observation made by
the Hon'ble Court and pass a reasoned order after issuing show-
cause notice to the petitioner. When order has not been
complied then petitioner has preferred contempt petition bearing
M.J.C. No.1359 of 2015, which was disposed off vide order
dated 09.01.2018 with liberty to challenge the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
09.01.2018. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Executive
Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that in the order dated 19.02.2015 passed in
CWJC No.2914 of 2015, it has been specifically directed to the
Executive Officer, Bankipore Circle, Patna, to give a show-
cause notice to the petitioner as to why the petitioner should not
be retired with effect from 30.04.2014 by ignoring the Medical
Report in favour of the petitioner, especially when such medical
report has been relied and acted upon in case of other
employees.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that vide Annexure-3 it becomes crystal clear that the Executive
Officer, Bankipore Circle, has instructed the petitioner vide
Memo No.2379 dated 31.12.2013 for medical checkup for age
determination and on his instruction the petitioner has presented
himself before the Medical Board. The Medical Board i.e.,
constituted by a team of five doctors, submitted report that on
22.02.2014 the age of petitioner is about 45 to 50 years on the
basis of physical, dental and radiological finding. Counsel
submits that once the Medical Board has ascertained his age 40
to 45 years on 04.01.2014, particularly upon instruction of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
Executive Officer, who is appointing authority for him as well
as for other employees. It has been further submitted that the
report of Medical Board has been accepted as in case of Smt.
Manju Annexed as Annexure-8 then denial by the officials of
the said age in case of the petitioner is completely violative to
law and is basically a case of discrimination with the petitioner.
Counsel also submits that in the impugned order the plea which
has been taken that Executive Officer is not the competent
authority for recommendation of ascertainment of age by
Medical Board may not be accepted. The other points which
has been taken in the impugned order is not acceptable to the
petitioner as for the purpose of taking loan documents were
filled up by different persons and not by the petitioner. Counsel
for the petitioner relied in the case of Saraswati Devi V. State
of Bihar reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 340 para-7, which talks
about authenticity of ossification test ascertained by Medical
Board and with this prayer he submits that the impugned order
contained in Memo No.3674 dated 11.12.2017 be set aside and
age as reported by Medical Board may be accepted.
8. Learned Counsel for the Patna Municipal
Corporation, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the
petitioner's case and submits that the petitioner has earlier
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
moved before this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.2914 of 2015.
Counsel submits that the final order in CWJC No.2914 of 2015
has been passed behind the back of Patna Municipal
Corporation as on the said date Patna Municipal Corporation
could not be represented and only due to this reason such order
has been passed. But he submits that the present writ petition is
devoid of any merit and fit to be dismissed due to the reason
that the petitioner was initially engaged as daily wager in the
year 1983 in Patna Municipal Corporation. His services was
regularized on Class-IV post of safai majdoor on 01.04.1985
and he was granted pay scale since then. Counsel submits that
in the service book, the age of petitioner mentioned as 35 years
on 24.04.1989 and date of birth has been mentioned as
22.04.1954. As such, petitioner has completed 60 years of age
on 30.04.2014. Learned Counsel further submits that during his
service period, petitioner has been granted 1st and 2nd A.C.P.
with effect from 22.11.2011 considering his date of birth and
date of retirement as 22.04.1954 and 30.04.2014 respectively.
The copy of the fixation form has been annexed with this
counter affidavit as Annexure-A. Learned Counsel further
submits that in the year 1988, the petitioner submitted an
application demanding provisional advance from provident fund
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
for marriage of his daughter Chunmun Kumari. In the said form,
age of her daughter was mentioned as 20 years, meaning
thereby her birth took place in the year 1968. If it has been
accepted the report of Civil Surgeon that petitioner is aged about
45 to 50 years on 22.04.2014 then the date of birth of petitioner
would be 1969-64 and as such the petitioner has his daughter in
just 1-4 years of age, either four years of age or prior to her birth
of daughter took place, which is quite impossible.
9. Learned Counsel for the Patna Municipal
Corporation has taken further plea that from Annexure-C of the
counter affidavit, it is apparent that the petitioner himself has
filed an application before Executive Officer, Bankipore Circle,
for ascertaining of his age at the fag end of his service on
10.11.2013; whereas his age of retirement was 30.02.2014. He
further submits with regard to issuance of direction made by the
Executive Officer, Bankipore Circle, Patna Municipal
Corporation, for age determination that direction of Executive
Officer, Bankipore Circle, is not acceptable in accordance with
law due to the reason that under Municipal Act, it is the
Municipal Commissioner who is the competent authority to take
decision to ascertain the age in the light of Section 27B(ii) of
the Bihar Municipal Act. Counsel further submits that in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
reasoned/impugned order, this plea has specifically been taken
that Municipal Commissioner has never approved the decision
of said age determination and Executive Officer was not the
competent authority for acceptance of age. Counsel also submits
that in the light of Hon'ble Court's order, passed in CWJC
No.2914 of 2015, show-cause notice has been issued to the
petitioner on which no response has been made by the
petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that there are three relevant
documents, first is service book in which date of birth is
indicated as 24.04.1954, second is application for taking
advance loan for the marriage of his daughter and third is
document relating to grant of 1st and 2nd A.C.P. indicates that the
correct age of petitioner is 24.04.1954, according to which his
date of retirement is 30.04.2014 considering all aspects of the
matter, enquiry made and then final order passed.
10. Learned Counsel for the Patna Municipal
Corporation relied on the following judgments, firstly in the
case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief
Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, reported in
AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851, secondly on the judgment of
Bharat Cooking Coal Limited and others Vs. Shyam
Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 and in the case of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
General Manager M/S. Barsua Iron Ore Mines Vs. The Vice
President, United Mines Majdoor Union and Others reported
in 2024 INSC 264 as well as on the judgment of Karnataka
Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Natraja
and Others, a reportable judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
passed in Civil Appeal No.5720 of 2021 reported in (2021) 12
Supreme Court Cases 27, and submits that any correction at
the fag end must be discouraged by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
He submits that application for change of birth can only be as
per relevant provisions/regulation applicable. It has also been
submitted that even if there is cogent evidence the same cannot
be as a matter of right. It has been further submitted that
application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches, if
it is made at the fag end of service particularly when the
employee is about to retire on attaining the age of
superannuation. He further submits that in the present matter the
said permission was not made by the competent authority,
prayer for change in date of birth made at the fag end of career,
particularly when service has been less than one year. By virtue
of documents present in the office placed by the petitioner
himself, it transpires that demand of age has been made by the
petitioner at the fag end of his career and it has been allowed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
an incompetent authority and not approved by competent one.
Counsel submits that, hence, on this ground alone the writ
petition is fit to be dismissed.
11. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of
the documents, it transpires to this Court that petitioner has
earlier moved before this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.2914 of
2015, in which final order has been passed on 19.02.2015 in the
absence of Patna Municipal Corporation by which this Hon'ble
Court has been pleased to direct that the petitioner will not be
reinstated in the service till an enquiry is held as with regard to
age of petitioner. The Executive Officer, Bankipore Circle,
Patna, was directed to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner
as to why the petitioner should be retired with effect from
30.04.2014 by ignoring the medical report in favour of the
petitioner, especially when such medical report has been relied
and acted upon in the case of other employees. It transpires to
this Court that in compliance of said order passed in CWJC
No.2914 of 2015, the Executive Officer, Bankipore Circle,
Patna Municipal Corporation, has passed a reasoned order
containing Memo No.3674 dated 11.12.2017 which is the
impugned order in the present writ petition.
12. On perusal of the materials on record, it
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
transpires to this Court that in the service book, the date of birth
has been entered as 35 years. It transpires from Annexure-C
that it is the petitioner, who filed application before the
Executive Officer, Bankipore, Municipal Corporation Patna, on
10.11.2013, i.e., six months prior to his retirement, by which the
petitioner had requested to ascertain his age by a doctor
claiming that he has been appointed in the year 1985 and upon
opening of service book his approx age has been inserted. It also
transpires vide Annexure-A that the documents relating to
granting of promotion to the petitioner, his age has been shown
as 24.04.1954 and date of retirement has been shown on
30.04.2014. The said document was prepared on 17.06.2011 by
virtue of which he has been granted benefit of A.C.P. Annexure-
B is the document which has been prepared by the petitioner
himself in the year 1988 that is the document on which the
petitioner had taken advance from the corporation for marriage
of his daughter. In the said document, his date of appointment
was 01.04.1984, age of his daughter was shown as 20 years and
marriage date was shown as 12.03.1988. From the record it
transpires that direction for ascertainment of age has been made
by the Executive Officer, Bankipore Circle, Patna Municipal
Corporation, an incompetent authority, on the request of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
petitioner himself and report of Medical Board has been
submitted vide Memo No.2578 dated 28.02.2014, by which his
age was ascertained on 22.02.2014 as 45 to 50 years which
cannot be accepted in the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of
Saraswati Devi and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and
Others reported in 1998(3) PLJR 340 extract of para-7 states as
follows:-
"Now it is a settled law that
the Matriculation certificate cannot be
stated to be an authentic document to verify
the exact age of a person and in such a case,
the authority may verify the age on
examination through a Medical Board.
Generally such examination by a Medical
Board based on ossification test is accepted
as valid.... "
But it is also true that there are two documents
which were in absolute contradiction with the report of the
Medical Board.
13. Counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation
who relied on the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and
Others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3
Supreme Court Cases 411, based on service law clearly held
that prayer for change of date of birth at the fag end of career is
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
impermissible. Paragraph-9 of the said judgment is most
relevant which states as follows:-
"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
[(2010) 14 SCC 423] 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
[(2005) 11 SCC 465]. 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] relief was
denied to the government employee on the
ground that he sought correction in the
service record after nearly 30 years of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
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.
* * *
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]
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
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.'"
Here in the present case, the Patna Municipal
Corporation (respondent) have maintained the date of birth as
24.04.1954, the document relating to grant of ACP indicates the
date of appointment as 01.04.1984 and, therefore, age of
retirement is 30.04.2014. But on 10.11.2013, the petitioner has
applied to ascertain his date of birth, which is at the fag end of
career, is not permissible according to this judgment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
14. The another judgment on which the
respondent relied is case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure
Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja and Others with
Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2021 reported in (2021) 12 Supreme
Court Cases 27, whose paragraphs- 9 to 11 states as follows:-
"9. So far as the appellant
Corporation is concerned, they adopted the
provisions of the 1974 Act by the Resolution
dated 17-5-1991. Therefore, as such the
request for change of date of birth as per the
1974 Act as adopted by the appellant
Corporation in the year 1991 was required
to be made by Respondent 1--employee
within a period of one year from 17-5-1991
being the employee of the appellant
Corporation. However, Respondent 1--
employee made the request for change of
date of birth vide notice dated 23-6-2007 i.e.
after the lapse of 24 years since he joined
the service and nearly after the lapse of 16
years from the date of adoption of the
enactment (the 1974 Act) by the appellant
Corporation. The High Court in the
impugned judgment and order [T.P. Nataraja
v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar
3510] has observed that nothing is on record
that the Resolution dated 17-5-1991
adopting the 1974 Act was brought to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
notice of the employee and that therefore
Respondent 1--employee might not be aware
of the applicability of the 1974 Act.
Aforesaid cannot be accepted. Being the
employee of the Corporation, he was
supposed to know the rules and regulations
applicable to the employees of the
Corporation. Ignorance of law cannot be an
excuse to get out of the applicability of the
statutory provisions.
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 : (SCC p. 158,
para 7)
"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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
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 : (SCC pp. 667 & 669)
"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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
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."
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 :
(SCC p. 782, para 5)
"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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
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 : (SCC pp. 415-17)
"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 : (SCC pp.
428-29, paras 16-17 & 19)
'16. The learned counsel for the appellant
has placed reliance on the judgment of this
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
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] 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
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,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
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. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
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 :
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
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. Considering the aforesaid decisions of
this Court the law on change of date of birth
can be summarised as under:
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
(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."
15. Further the Patna Municipal Corporation
relied on the judgment of the General Manager, M/S Barsua
Iron Ore Mines Vs. The Vice President, United Mines
Mazdoor Union and Others, reported in 2024 INSC 264,
whose paragraphs 17 to 19 states as follows:-
"17. From this point of view,
it is clear that the disclosure of the originally
given date of birth by the respondent no.3
was a well-thought out plan hatched by him,
at the relevant time. His conduct cannot be
simply brushed aside on a plea that there
was an error on the part of the appellant in
recording his date of birth. Another doubt
cast on the conduct of the respondent no.3 is
him not acting on time, which raises a
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
question about the bonafides of his claim of
having been born on 12.03.1955. In fact,
even after giving a declaration on
14.08.1982, on the merger of HSL with SAIL,
the copy of the STC was never provided to
the appellant, which was done only in
response to the letter dated 24.11.1998,
requiring him to submit documentary proof
of his date of birth. Examined thus, the
following is evincible: (a) the Competent
Authority noticed discrepancy in the date of
birth in the records of the appellant and,
upon due scrutiny, opined that the
declaration of date of birth made by the
respondent no.3 at the first point of time, i.e.,
27.12.1948, should be taken as his date of
birth, as till 1998 no documentary proof was
given, and; (b) the respondent no.3 would
not have been able to legally come into
employment on 27.12.1972, had he disclosed
his date of birth as 12.03.1955. No fault can
be found with the appellant on this score. It
is a just and reasonable conclusion by the
appellant's Competent Authority. Moreover,
reckoning his date of birth as 27.12.1948,
the respondent no.3 has been permitted to
work for 36 years, which by itself is a
sufficient period of employment. Hence, on
this count too, we are unable to show any
indulgence to the respondent no.3.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
18. Undoubtedly, a decision
on the issue of date of birth is as important
for the employer as it is for the employee.
Reference in this regard can be made to
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v Shib Kumar
Dushad, (2000) 8 SCC 696. As expressed in
Union of India v C Rama Swamy, (1997) 4
SCC 647, "... the court also ought not to
grant any relief even if it is shown that the
date of birth, as originally recorded, was
incorrect because the candidate concerned
had represented a different date of birth to
be taken into consideration obviously with a
view that that would be to his advantage.
...".
19. Moreover, the principles
of estoppel would come into play in the
present case. The respondent no.3, having
stated on 27.12.1972, that his date of birth
was 27.12.1948, cannot be permitted to raise
the claim of his date of birth being
12.03.1955, that too on 14.08.1982, i.e.,
almost after a decade (counting from
27.12.1972 to 14.08.1982). Even the STC
was submitted after the appellant requested
the respondent no.3 for documentary proof
on 24.11.1998."
16. In the light of the discussions made above, it
becomes crystal clear to this Court that there are restrictions
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
casted by Hon'ble Supreme Court that at the fag end of the
career, the determination of age is not permissible. Here in the
present case, the petitioner has filed application in the month of
October-November, 2013 for ascertainment of his age, whereas
he has to retire in April, 2014 i.e., at the fag end of career is not
permissible. As such, the judgment of Saraswati Devi (Supra)
of this Hon'ble Court shall not help to the petitioner in any
manner.
17. In addition to that the order for ascertainment
of age has been made by the Executive Officer, Bankipore
Circle, Patna Municipal Corporation, who is not competent
authority according to Municipal Act, the competent authority is
Municipal Commissioner/Chief Municipal Officer under
Section 27B(ii) of the Act, which states as follows:-
"27B(2) Subject to the
supervision and control of the Empowered
Standing Committee, and the provisions of
this Act and of any Rules and Bye-laws made
there under, executive functions for carrying
on the administration of the municipality
shall vest in the Chief Municipal Officer."
Here in the present case, admittedly a direction
for ascertainment of age has been made by the authority, who is
Patna High Court CWJC No.3037 of 2018 dt.08-07-2025
not competent to take such decision. In this regard impugned
order assigned reasoning, which is acceptable to this Court.
18. In addition to that the service book, the
documents relating to promotion and grant of ACP and the
documents by which the petitioner has demanded loan, the
authorities reached on the conclusion that date of retirement is
30.04.2014 and, hence, this Court is of the firm view that there
is no need of interference in the impugned order due to the
reasons discussed above.
19. Accordingly, this writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 26.06.2025
Uploading Date 11.07.2025
Transmission Date NA
