The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely application for correction of date of birth in service records and the presumption regarding the correctness of date of birth recorded in service records.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J

I.A No. 10599 of 2023

This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of the delay of 82 days in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also after going through the cause shown in this interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay, we find sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 82 days and, accordingly, I.A No. 10599 of 2023 is allowed.

L.P.A No. 25 of 2023

3. Jhagru Das who was employed as a Miner Loader under M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short, the BCCL) approached the writ Court to challenge the order dated 23rd/27th February 2021 by which the Project Officer, Godhar Colliery declined to change his date of birth in the service records.

4. The writ Court by referring to the judgments in “Tamil Nadu v. T. V. Venugopalan” (1994) 6 SCC 302, “State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble” (2010) 14 SCC 423, “State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Premlal Shrivas” (2011) 9 SCC 664 and “Factory Manager, Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Laxman” (2020) 3 SCC 419 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the date of birth recorded in the service records of a government employee cannot be altered on the basis of the matriculation certificate at the fag end of his service.

5. The appellant who was the writ petitioner challenged the writ Court’s order dated 6th December 2022 on the ground that the employer which accepted his date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate in the subsequent years of his service cannot fall back to the date of birth erroneously recorded at the time of appointment and force him to superannuate more than 3 years before he was due to retire from service. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the correct date of birth of the appellant was recorded in the orders granting promotions to the appellant and also in the seniority list prepared by the BCCL and, therefore, the appellant had no reason to approach the Court before he was intimated that he would retire in November 2021.

6. The appellant who was appointed as Miner Loader under the BCCL on 5th November 1986 claims that he passed the matriculation examination in the year 1981, before his entering in service under the BCCL. He was regularized in service on 12th August 1987 and his age was recorded in the statutory Form-B register as 25 years as on 12th August 1987. However, in the matriculation certificate, his date of birth is recorded as 6th April 1965. He was promoted to General Mazdoor Category-I based on the qualification of matriculation; and was given further promotions in the rank of General Mazdoor Category-I, Fitter (H) Category-II and Electrician Category-IV because he has the qualification of matriculation. On the other hand, the BCCL pleaded that the appellant never produced his matriculation certificate at the time of entry into the service, maybe because at that time no educational qualification was required for appointment as Miner Loader. The BCCL seeks support from the statutory Form-B, service excerpts and medical examination report wherein the age of the appellant was recorded as 25 years as of 5th November 1986.

7. The writ Court dealt with the rival contentions in paragraph no. 9 of the order dated 6th December 2022, as under:

“9. In the instant case from the record, I find that it is an admitted case that petitioner has entered in service in the year 1986. At the time of his entering in service, he was subjected to medical test wherein his age was assessed as 25 years as on 4.11.1986. The petitioner accepted the said recording and has put his signature which is evident from Anneuxre-1. Consequently thereafter a statutory Form-B register was opened wherein his date was mentioned as 5.11.1961 which commensurate with the medical examination report. The petitioner has also put his signature therein acknowledging his date