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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 18824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Sunil Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. – Respondent
WPS No. 3780 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chandresh Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Sudhir Kumar Bajpai

A request for correction of date of birth in service records cannot be entertained at the fag-end of a service career, and such claims, if delayed for decades, are liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India — Articles 14, 16 and 21 — Correction of date of birth in service records — Request made at the fag-end of service — Maintainability — Petitioner filed application for correction of date of birth 27 years after induction into service — Delay and laches are fatal to the claim — Courts should be circumspect and cautious while issuing directions for such correction — Request rejected. Facts of the Case: The petitioner was appointed as a store keeper in 1988. He alleged that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded as 17.08.1963 in the service book despite his educational certificates stating his date of birth as 27.04.1965. He first represented for correction in 2015, nearly 27 years after his appointment, and filed the present petition just three months before his retirement. The respondent authorities rejected his representation.

Findings of Court:
Following established Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that a claim for correction of date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag-end of a service career, as it causes a chain reaction affecting the seniority and promotion prospects of other employees. The inordinate delay in raising the grievance is fatal to the petition.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the correction of his date of birth in his service records after over two decades of service, shortly before his superannuation.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for change of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when filed at the fag-end of service, as it impacts the legitimate expectations of other employees.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges service record regarding date of birth. (Para 1 , 1 , 2)
2. arguments concerning delay and the binding nature of ncwa. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court finds that unexplained delay in seeking correction is fatal. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. precedents barring alteration of birth dates near retirement. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. petition dismissed due to delay and laches. (Para 15)

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to call for the entire record

pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to quash the letter dated

24.03.2023 issued by respondent

authorities.

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be

further pleased to direct the respondents to

correct the date of birth of the petitioner as

27.04.1965 in his service record.

10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be

further pleased to direct the respondent

authorities not to retire the petitioner

considering his date of birth as 17.08.1963

and allow the petitioner to continue his

services till his date of superannuation

considering his date of birth as

27.04.1965.

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble

Court may deems fit and proper may also

be awarded to the petitioner including the

cost of the petition”

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was employed as the Senior Store Keeper at Sub Area Jhilmili, Area Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) with the respondent company. He was initially appointed as a General Mazdoor Category-I (piece-rated workman) on 16.08.1988. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner submitted his original Class 8th mark sheet, which recorded his date of birth as 27.04.1965. However, due to an inadvertent mistake, the respondent company erroneously recorded his date of birth as 17.08.1963 in the service records, despite the original mark sheet being attached to the petitioner’s service book. The petitioner, in compliance with the appointment order, submitted all requisite documents, including his educational certificates. During the medical examination, however, the petitioner’s age was incorrectly assessed and recorded as 25 years on 16/17.08.1988, based on the wrong date of birth. This discrepancy was also reflected in Form-O. Despite the incorrect entry, the petitioner progressed in his career, and based on his educational qualifications, including the Class 11th certificate, which listed his date of birth as 27.04.1965, he appeared in departmental examinations, was promoted to the post of Clerk on 29.07.1997, and is presently serving as Senior Store Keeper at Pandopara mines, Jhilmili Sub Area. Additionally, the petitioner has also submitted his Dakhil Khariz registers of Class 5th and 8th, which confirm his date of birth as 27.04.1965. The petitioner became aware of the error regarding his date of birth in 2015 and promptly submitted a representation to the respondent authorities requesting correction of his date of birth. This was followed by several correspondences, including letters dated 28.12.2015, 16.01.2016, and 20.01.2016, seeking clarification and providing the required forms (PS-3 and PS-4). However, despite repeated requests, the authorities failed to address the issue. In 1973, the Government of India constituted the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal India (JBCCI), which governs the service conditions of non-executive employees in the coal industry through the National Coal Wage Agreements (NCWA). Under the NCWA, the terms of service for employees, including provisions for correcting errors in records, are binding on the parties. Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III specifically governs the process for correcting errors in age/date of birth. Despite the petitioner’s date of birth being clearly established through his school records and other official documents, the respondent authorities refused

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