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

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 13345 of 2008 BENILAL SAHU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri P.K.Asati - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aishwarya Singh - Deputy Government Advocate for the State.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated

19.10.2006 contained in Annexure P/1 by which the petitioner was directed to be superannuated w.e.f. 31.10.2006 and also against the order dated 13.08.2008 contained in Annexure P/6 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was turned down.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the date of birth of the petitioner was incorrectly recorded in the service book. As per the certificate issued by the school, the date of birth of the petitioner was 01.11.1947, whereas, in the service book it was recorded as 01.11.1944, and on the basis of the said entry which was made in the service book, the petitioner was sought to be retired vide order dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure P/1). The said order is being assailed by the present petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that the petitioner disputed his date of superannuation by sending a legal notice to the respondent vide Annexure P/4 dated 02.11.2006 and, thus, contended that as the entire testimonials of the petitioner reflect that he was born on 01.11.1947, the impugned order deserves quashment.

3. Counsel for the State submits that Annexure R/1 has been brought on record which is the service book of the petitioner, and the same reflect that the date of birth of the petitioner was 01.11.1944. The petitioner during the entire service tenure never made any effort to dispute the same as there was no objection during the entire service career by the petitioner. Therefore, he was rightly superannuated upon attaining the age of superannuation on

31.10.2006.

4. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

5. A perusal of the record reflects that, except Annexure P/4, which is a legal notice sent by the petitioner on 02.11.2006, there is no other document on record to substantiate that any effort was made by the petitioner to dispute the entry in the service book. The petitioner is relying upon Annexure P/3, which is the marksheet of the petitioner and Annexure P/4, which is the birth certificate of the petitioner, in which the date of birth was mentioned as 01.11.1947. The law in this regard is settled. The challenge to date of birth cannot be made at the fag end of the service career.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors.

Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 has held 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 Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 96] . In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.

17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106] relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after near