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
| 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
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.
Applications for correction of date of birth in service records can be rejected on grounds of delay and lack of irrefutable proof, especially when made at the fag-end of service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order cannot be quashed solely on the ground of a violation of the principle of natural justice unless prejudice is caused. Additionally, t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that requests for correction of date of birth at the fag end of a career must be supported by irrefutable proof and evidence of real injustice, and....
The court ruled that corrections to an employee's recorded date of birth must be made promptly and substantiated by irrefutable evidence, especially when requested at the end of service.
The correction of date of birth in the service record should not be done on the verge of retirement, and the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate carries more probative value than ....
Employment rights include the correction of clerical errors impacting service continuity, with adherence to principles of natural justice necessary when determining an employee's age.
Requests for correction of date of birth in service records made at the end of service are not sustainable unless made within prescribed time limits and with clear evidence of error.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.