IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 4681 of 2017 SMT. MANO BAI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ajay Bhargava - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri K.K. Prajapati – Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

“(i) That, respondents may kindly be directed to correct the superannuated dated 14.06.2019 in place to 14.06.2017 in her service record.

(ii) That, the respondent no. 2 may kindly be directed to permitted the petitioner to discharge her duty in Aganwadi Sahayika in Village Bilowa Tehsil Pohari District Shivpuri, (iii) That, appointment of respondent no. 5 Mamta Jatav in Aganwadi Sahiyaka in Village Bilowa may kindly be set aside.

(iv) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that by virtue of order dated 25.03.2017 petitioner was superannuated on 14.06.2017. It is submitted that petitioner was wrongly declared as superannuated because petitioner's age was not 60 years. It is submitted that on 22.05.2017 respondent No.4 wrote a letter to respondent No.2 for correction in the age of superannuation of petitioner dated 14.06.2019 in place of 14.06.2017 because as per the certificate issued by the Medical Board as well as Aadhar Card, Voter Card and Affidavit submitted by petitioner her age was 58 years and therefore she was entitled to work up to

14.06.2019.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the State Government issued one policy dated 07.11.2014 for Aanganwadi Worker Sahayak. As per said policy, medical certificate was obtained from the medical board and the medical board gave its opinion that as petitioner was less than 60 years, therefore, petitioner was entitled to work up the age of 60 years i.e. till 14.06.2019. It is submitted that respondents did not permit petitioner to work till 14.06.2019. Since respondents did not allow the petitioner to work till 14.06.2019, she was entitled to salary of aforesaid period.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State opposes the submissions put forth by learned counsel for petitioner. It is submitted by learned Government Advocate that petitioner was appointed on the post of Aanganwadi Worker Assistant in the year 1983. At that time MIC filled the record of petitioner in which the date of birth of petitioner has been recorded as 14.06.1957 and on that basis she completed 60 years' of age and stood retired. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/State that the order Annexure P-1 has been issued in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. On these submissions, learned counsel for respondents prays for dismissal of present petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The petitioner herself has fulfilled her employment particulars with the department and she herself recorded the date of birth as 14.06.1957. She herself filled up all necessary information with the department.

7. The petitioner approached this Court in the year 2017 while she had entered into service in the year 1983 and after three decades and four years she has no authority in law to claim the relief to correct and record the date of birth on the basis of medical certificate.

8. It is settled position that the request for change of date of birth in the service record at the fag end of service is not sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited And Another Vs. M.C. Subramaniam Reddy reported in (2021) 12 SCC 27 in para 10 to 12, has held as under:

“10. Even otherwise and assuming that the reasoning given by the High Court for the sake of convenience is accepted in that case also even Respondent 1—employee was not entitled to any relief or change of date of birth on the ground of