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

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J., RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Uma Ram - Appellant
Versus
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 81 of 2025
Decided On : 22-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. A. K. Mehta, Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate

The court held that corrections to recorded dates of birth in service records are contingent upon timely applications and irrefutable evidence; delays over two decades are inherently fatal to claims.

Headnote:(A) Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III - Correction of date of birth in service records - The appellants sought to rectify their recorded dates of birth based on their Matriculation Certificates, which were dismissed due to excessive delay in raising objections and lack of timely evidence - Correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right without irrefutable proof and adherence to proper procedures - The court upheld the decisions dismissing the writ petitions on the basis that the appellants failed to prove their claims timely and adequately. (Paras 25-30)

(B) Delay in Application - The court noted that raising objections after a delay of over two decades is fatal to the case and that a reasonable time for application must be observed. (Paras 25-26)

(C) Functions of Medical Board - The court found that dates of birth had been recorded correctly following procedures and that the appellants had participated in the age assessment process. (Paras 17-22)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were employed by Bharat Coking Coal Limited and sought corrections in their dates of birth recorded in service records, claiming discrepancies with their Matriculation Certificates from the time of their appointments. The requests included one from 2007 and another from 2013, both after years of acceptance of the given dates.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that due process was followed regarding age verification, and the delay in raising the objection eliminated any grounds for correction.

Issues: The primary issues concerned whether the appellants submitted their Matriculation Certificates at hiring, and the effects of the lengthy delay in filing for corrections.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the correction of date of birth is not a right but contingent upon appropriate evidence and timeliness. The lengthy delay and failure to object in a timely manner were significant in the dismissals.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. claims regarding correction of birth dates based on matriculation certificates. (Para 3 , 5)
2. issue of correctness of dates in service records. (Para 6)
3. arguments regarding duty to accept educational qualifications. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. defense arguments against appellants' claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. court's review of evidence and claims. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. delay in raising objections impacts the case. (Para 20 , 21)
7. principles governing correction of dates of birth. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 26)
8. distinction of relevant cases and reasons for dismissals. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
9. court's refusal to intervene in impugned orders. (Para 31)
10. final dismissal of appeals. (Para 32)

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J:

I.A. No. 679/2025 (L.P.A. No. 81/2025)

1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the application duly supported by the affidavit of the appellant/applicant, we find that sufficient cause has been explained which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 95 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.

2. The present interlocutory application stands disposed of.

3. L.P.A No. 81 of 2025 has been preferred against the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by this Court in W. P. (S) No. 644 of 2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the A1’) seeking correction of his death of birth in the service record as ‘05.10.1965’ instead of ‘07.05.1962’ on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his Matriculation Certificate, has been dismissed.

4. L.P.A No. 523 of 2024 has been preferred against the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2365 of 2021 whereby the prayer of the petitioner/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the A2’) for quashing the letter dated 14/15.10.2020 issued by the General Manager (P&IR), M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad rejecting the claim of the A2 for correction of his date of birth in the service record as ‘07.06.1966’ instead of ‘27.06.1964’ on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate, has been dismissed.

Facts of L.P.A No. 81 of 2025

5. According to the A1, he was duly appointed by the respondent authorities on 02.12.1986 and at the time of appointment, he had submitted his Matriculation Certificate issued in the year 1982 from Khalsa High School, Dhanbad wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 05.10.1965. At the time of preparing the service excerpt of the A1, his date of birth was not mentioned in the column of date of birth, as he was appointed on the post of Temporary Underground Loader. The date of birth of the A1 was mentioned in Form-B as 24 years as on 07.05.1986 as per his medical report and as such he filed a representation dated 20.03.2007 for correction of his date of birth in the service record as was recorded in his Matriculation Certificate. The said certificate of the A1 was also verified from the concerned school i.e. Khalsa High School, Dhanbad and the same was found genuine. The Principal of that school also confirmed that in the school record, the date of birth of the A1 was recorded as 05.10.1965. The Manager, East Basuria Colliery, M/s B.C.C.L called for an explanation from the A1 vide letter dated 08/11.11.2014 which was replied by him on 25.11.2014 stating that he had declared his date of birth as 05.10.1965 at the time of his appointment in the year 1986 by submitting Matriculation Certificate which was issued in the year 1982 and thereby requested to correct his date of birth as per his Matriculation Certificate. However, the respondent authorities failed to rectify the date of birth of the A1 as per his Matriculation Certificate and he was made to retire on 31.05.2022 on the basis of his date of birth recorded in Form-B. Thereafter, the A1 filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 644 of 2018 seeking direction upon the respondent authorities to correct his date of birth

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