Calcutta High Court Upholds DVC Retirement Schedule in Date of Birth Dispute

The High Court at Calcutta has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Group C employee of the Damodar Valley Corporation who sought to rectify his recorded date of birth just weeks before his scheduled retirement on June 30, 2025. Justice Aniruddha Roy ruled that the correction could not be granted because no bona fide clerical mistake had occurred in the service records.

Compassionate Appointment and the Original Age Assessment

Gangadhar Mondal joined D.V.C. in 1995 through a compassionate appointment. At the time, he submitted a school Transfer Certificate showing his date of birth as December 10, 1968. However, the certificate lacked the required attestation by the District Education Officer. Following the procedure laid down in the interview letter and the 1985 D.V.C. circular, the authorities referred him to a medical board.

The medical examination conducted on June 12, 1995 assessed Mondal as approximately 30 years old, leading to the recording of June 13, 1965 as his date of birth in the Service Book. This formed the basis of his entire service tenure.

The Long Campaign for Rectification

Nearly four years after joining, Mondal obtained the missing attestation on the Transfer Certificate in 1998 and submitted his first application for date of birth correction in September 1999. Subsequent representations followed in 2023 and 2025, accompanied by supporting documents including Aadhaar, Voter ID, and PAN cards. He also obtained an identity card from D.V.C. in 2019 reflecting the later date.

D.V.C. consistently maintained the original entry and issued retirement notices in April 2025 based on the Service Book. The corporation eventually rejected the claim in a communication dated April 30, 2025.

Employer's Defence Grounded in Statutory Framework

Counsel for D.V.C. argued that the corporation operates under its own central legislation—the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948—and its Service Regulations. Regulation 21 expressly permits alteration of the date of birth only when a bona fide clerical mistake is established. The medical board assessment, conducted precisely because the initial school document was incomplete, constituted a valid and independent method of age determination, not a clerical error.

The respondent further submitted that government circulars cited by the petitioner did not apply to public sector undertakings like D.V.C. Additionally, Mondal himself had declared the 1965 date of birth while applying for a higher post in 1999.

Petitioner's Reliance on Attested Documents and Timelines

The petitioner contended that once the Transfer Certificate received proper attestation, the correction should have been effected within the five-year window permitted by the guidelines. He argued that the 1999 application remained pending for years and that no communicated decision existed until the recent rejection. Mondal also highlighted the 2019 identity card as proof that the corporation had internally accepted the corrected date.

Court's Firm View on Expert Assessment and Regulatory Compliance

Justice Roy conducted a detailed examination of the appointment procedure and the governing regulations. The court noted that the two-part mechanism in the interview letter and the 1985 D.V.C. circular operated independently: the attested school document was primary, but its absence rightly triggered the medical board route.

Key Observations from the Judgment

> "There was no bona fide mistake or clerical error in recording the date of birth in the Service Book of the petitioner. The recording was made pursuant to the said medical report on the basis of an available procedure for assessment of age of the petitioner recognised under the relevant Service Regulation of D.V.C."

> "The law is well settled that, Court cannot sit in appeal on a decision and opinion of experts neither the Court can substitute an expert’s opinion."

> "An alteration in the date of birth of an employee can be made at a later stage only by the corporation if it is established that a bona fide clerical mistake has been committed in recording the date of birth in the Service Book."

The court held that the medical board opinion had attained finality since it was never challenged, and the procedure followed was entirely consistent with the statutory framework.

Final Outcome and Practical Implications

Justice Roy dismissed the writ petition, clarifying that the scheduled retirement date of June 30, 2025 would remain undisturbed. The ruling reinforces that service records created through valid expert assessment at the time of appointment carry significant weight and cannot be disturbed at the fag end of an employee's career without compelling proof of a genuine clerical error.

This decision provides clarity for public sector employers regarding the stringent conditions under which age rectification applications may succeed.