The recorded date of birth at the time of appointment is binding, and requests for correction made after a significant delay are not sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment/order dated 13.09.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2296 of 2021 whereby the Hon’ble Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ application and directed that the date of birth of the writ petitioner should be recorded as 21.12.1972 and further directed to withdraw the superannuation notice which was issued to the writ petitioner on 02.08.2022 vide Memo No.308 which accordingly was quashed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed in Central Coalfields Limited under the Land-losers Scheme. At the time of his appointment on 06.01.1990, he was medically examined and his age was assessed as 19 years (Page 51 of the memo of appeal).

As per the case of the appellants as pleaded in para 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Single Judge, the writ petitioner though disclosed his educational qualification as Matriculate, did not produce his matriculation certificate and, therefore, his age had to be assessed medically and was mentioned as 19 years as on 06.01.1990 and accordingly his date of birth was assessed at 05.01.1971. The writ petitioner never objected to the same. As per the appellants, the writ petitioner deliberately did not produce the matriculation certificate, because, if the age mentioned in the matriculation certificate (21.12.1972) had been disclosed, he would not have been granted appointment as on the date of appointment, he was apparently aged less than 18 years and, therefore, he chose not to produce his matriculation certificate and got his age assessed through a Medical Board as 19 years as on 06.01.1990 at the time of his appointment.

It further appears that in the NEIS (Non-Executive Information System), the date of birth of the writ petitioner was entered as 21.12.1962 and for the first time, on 24.03.2018, the writ petitioner while objecting the entry of date of birth in the NEIS as 21.12.1962 claimed for the same to be rectified as 21.12.1972, to which the appellants did not agree.

It is a settled principle of law that date of birth which stood recorded at the time of appointment is binding both on the employer as well as the employee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 has held as under:-

“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 the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 423 wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder:

“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 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 : 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 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 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (19