SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 422

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRANJAL DAS, J.
Sh. C. Lianhluna, S/o Lalzama (L) – Petitioner 
Versus
The Secretary To The Govt. Of Mizoram And  Ors. – Respondents 
WP(C)/160 of 2025
Decided On : 03-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr B Lalramenga
For the Respondent: Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Government, Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel

Alteration of an employee's date of birth must comply with natural justice principles; failure to provide an opportunity to contest changes leads to void actions.

Headnote:(A) Employees' Service Rules, 2024 - RR 39(5) - Alteration of date of birth - Original date of birth recorded as 24-02-1966 - Later corrected to 24-02-1968 based on valid documents - Bank sought to revert to original date at retirement - Principles of natural justice not followed in reversion process - Impugned order set aside and quashed. (Paras 1, 3, 61, 63)

(B) Natural Justice - Opportunity of hearing must be provided when altering entries with civil consequences - Lack of due process renders such actions void. (Paras 57, 62)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested a decision to revert his date of birth from 24-02-1968 back to 24-02-1966 for retirement purposes, arguing that the original date was changed following established procedures and documents indicating 1968 as his actual date of birth. He claimed that reverting to the original date would lead to premature retirement. (Paras 2, 10, 60)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the correction of date of birth had been established and none of the subsequent alterations had been lawfully documented. The bank did not follow appropriate procedures to retract the date and failed to give the petitioner an opportunity to defend against the new assertion. (Paras 61-62)

Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the change in date of birth and whether the bank followed due process before deciding to revert to the original date. (Paras 3, 62)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the alteration of significant entries like date of birth must adhere to the principle of natural justice, including the opportunity for the affected party to be heard. The failure to do so invalidated the proposed reversion. (Paras 57, 62)

Result: Impugned order dated 03-11-2025 quashed; petitioner retains date of birth 24-02-1968.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's date of birth dispute background. (Para 2 , 4 , 10)
2. arguments on legal rectification procedures. (Para 3 , 11 , 17 , 25)
3. petitioner’s proof and administrative process. (Para 6 , 8 , 12 , 14)
4. issues surrounding compliance with service rules. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. judicial principles regarding administrative justice. (Para 33 , 35 , 36)
6. court's decision to quash erroneous retirement order. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri C. Lianhluna, aggrieved by order dated 03-11-2025, passed by the Respondent No. 2, being the Chief Executive Officer of Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank, vide letter No. MCAB/A-67/2025-26/2, whereby the date of birth of the petitioner for the purpose of superannuation was to be taken as 24-02-1966, instead of the date of 24-02-1968 purportedly recorded in the service book.

3. The basic contention of the writ petitioner is that though initially his date of birth was recorded as 24-02-1966, but subsequently on 15-04-2016, it was corrected as 24-02-1968, which is stated to be his actual date of birth and therefore, seeking to make his date of birth 24-02-1966 again at the fag end of his career has prejudiced him and amounts to retiring him prematurely in an unfair manner.

4. Accordingly, the writ petitioner is seeking interference with the said impugned order passed by respondent No. 2. Four respondents have been impleaded, with respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being the Chief Executive Officer, Deputy General Manager and Assistant General Manager respectively of the Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank (herein after MCAB for short).

5. Respondent No. 1 is the Secretary to the Mizoram Co-operation Department. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have filed a common affidavit in opposition and the writ petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavit in opposition filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

6. Before proceeding further, the facts contended by the writ petitioner may be stated. It is stated that the writ petitioner joined the MCAB on 28-02-1991 as a clerk-cum-cashier and his appointment order was dated 28-02-1991. Thereafter, he was promoted to the junior management grade by notification dated 25-04-2016 and he was further promoted to the Middle Management Grade III on 19-03-2025. It is stated that presently he is serving in the said Middle Management Grade III. He has annexed as Annexure - 1 and 2, the copies of the orders dated 28-02-1991 and 25-04-2016 as mentioned above. It is further stated by the petitioner that at the time of preparation of the petitioners service book, his date of birth was incorrectly entered as 24-02- 1966, whereas his true and correct date of birth was 24-02-1968 as reflected in his birth certificate, Baptismal certificate, school records and other supporting documents. It is stated that he approached Respondent No. 2 by submitting a representation for correction of his date of birth and in response to the same, the respondent No. 3 by letter No. MCAB-Adm-C-20/2015-16/4 dated 21-12- 2015 informed the petitioner that all the documents kept by the MCAB reflected his date of birth as 24-02-1966 and therefore, if he desired alteration of his date of birth, he should resolve the matter before a Court of law and submit the court's order for correction of his date of birth. The said letter dated 21-12-2015 was annexed as Annexure – 3 and 3 A.

7. It is further stated by the petitioner that subsequent to the above direction of the authority, he executed an affidavit dated 08-01-2016 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl affirming that his correct date of birth is 24-02- 1966 as recorded in the birth certificate and Baptismal certificate. He stated that al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top