IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 13 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 40003 of 2025 TITKU RAM SAHU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anubhav Singhal - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 26-06-2025 (Annexure-P/8).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner has been incorrectly recorded in the Service Book as 28-06- 1963. It is pointed out that in the Aadhaar Card, the petitioner’s date of birth is mentioned as 01-01-1967, and in the Voter List prepared on 01-01-2003, the petitioner’s age has been shown as 40 years. It is, therefore, contended that necessary correction in the service record ought to have been carried out.

3. However, treating the petitioner’s date of birth as 28-06-1963, the respondents sought to superannuate him with effect from 30-06-2025. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation dated 15-05-2025 highlighting his grievance, but the same was rejected by the respondent- authority. The said representation was considered and decided vide impugned order dated 26-06-2025, which was passed in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.19306/2025, wherein the respondents had been directed to decide the petitioner’s representation regarding the anomaly pertaining to recording of his date of birth in service record. It is, thus, contended that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, i.e., W.P.

No.19306/2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the authority was duly informed that the incorrect entry of date of birth in the Service Book was due to the mistake of the concerned official who had recorded it, and communication to that effect was sent vide Annexure-P/1.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it appears that the petitioner’s date of birth in the Service Book has been recorded as 28-06-1963. The petitioner has not placed on record any material to show that he had raised any objection or disputed the said entry at any point prior to submitting his representation dated 15-05-2025. It is evident that the said representation was made at the fag end of his service career, as the petitioner ultimately superannuated on 30-06-2025.

6. Having considered the submissions, a perusal of the records reflects that the petitioner, on the eve of retirement, has made a request for correction in his date of birth. There is no document on record nor pleadings, that during entire service career petitioner made any efforts to seek correction of his date of birth in his service book. The correction is being sought on the basis of the entry pertaining to date of birth in the Voter List as well as Adhar Card. As there was failure on the part of the petitioner to seek any correction during his service tenure, at the initial stage, the said prayer cannot be considered in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411, wherein the Apex Court has held in paragraphs 9,10,11 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 State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble [State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 582] wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder : (SCC pp. 428-29, paras 16-17 & 19)

“16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Pa