IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

&

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN

MAT 10 of 2020

Swapan Kumar Roy

vs.

The State of West Bengal and another

Appearance:

For the Appellant : Mr. Md. Sarwar Jahan, Adv.

Ms. KarunamoyeeSamanta, Adv.

Ms. Tapati Sarkar, Adv.

Mr. Asif Mehdi, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Suddhadev Adak, Adv.

Heard On : 03.12.2025 Judgment On : 03.12.2025

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Per, Sujoy Paul, A.C.J.:

1.This petition takes exception to the order of learned Single Judge

dated 17.12.2019 passed in W.P. 18900(W) of 2019 whereby

prayer of the present appellant seeking alteration of date of birth in the service record is rejected.

2.The petitioner/appellant was appointed on 08.06.1978. He was due to retire in November, 2019. On 03.09.2019, he preferred an application seeking alteration of date of birth in the service record. It is submitted that as per the document available with the appellant, his date of birth should be 15.11.1961 whereas in the service record it is erroneously recorded as 15.11.1959. Learned Single Judge rejected the said application on certain grounds. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of learned Single Judge is bad in law and date of birth may be directed to be corrected.

3.Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee supported the impugned order.

4.The singular point involved in this matter is no more res integra.

This is trite that the employee must ask for alteration of date of birth with quite promptitude. A request at the December of the career for alteration of date of birth cannot be entertained, even if there is sound proof of date of birth of the employee. The curtains are finally drawn on this aspect by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Harnam Singh vs. Union of India reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162. The relevant portion reads thus:

“It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time-limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

5.This judgment is consistently followed by Courts and in a recent pronouncement in the WPCT 340 of 2024 (Anil Kumar Mandal vs. Union of India & Others), this Court held:

“15.In the case of Harnam Singh (supra), there was a statutory time limit for seeking alteration of date of birth. However, in the cases where there exists no such time limit, the Supreme Court in catena of judgments opined that the employee must approach the Court within reasonable time and not at the December of his career. (See 1994 Suppl. 1 SCC 155 Home Deptt.

vs. R. Kirubakaran)

16. The relevant portion reads thus:

“If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the tribunal on the