Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3227

ORISSA HIGH COURT
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J
Rilu Naik – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 29942 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.R. Dash
For the Respondents: S.P. Das, D. Patnaik

In service law, a date of birth recorded based solely on initial self-declaration does not override age information contained in formal government identification documents. Absent credible contradictory evidence, official records reflecting age must prevail for determining the date of superannuation.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Date of birth - Determination - Dispute regarding - Recording of date of birth based on self-declaration cannot take precedence over identity documents such as government-issued identification cards when the latter are consistently relied upon and the former is unsupported by any corroborative evidence - Inconsistency between self-declared date and official records warrants reliance on documented entries. (Paras 8.2, 8.3)

(B) Service Law - Superannuation - Retirement based on official record - Consistent evidentiary record - Documents like voter identification, tax identity, and unique identification documents serve as relevant evidence for age determination when they consistently indicate a birth date and the employee fails to provide countervailing evidence or challenge those entries during service. (Paras 5, 8.1, 8.2)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order of retirement, asserting that the date of birth should have been recorded as per an initial self-declaration made at the time of service commencement. The employer had processed retirement based on the date of birth reflected in the worker's government-issued identity documents. The petitioner provided no supporting documentation for the claimed date and failed to challenge the official identity records during the tenure of service.

Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the retirement order, concluding that the self-declared date lacked evidentiary value compared to official records. The court held that without documentary proof to substantiate the earlier claimed date, the employer correctly relied upon the existing official identity records.

Issues: The main issues were whether a self-declared date of birth supersedes recorded identity document entries and whether the employer was justified in superannuating the petitioner based on the existing service record.

Ratio Decidendi: Official identification records enjoy a presumption of correctness in service matters. A self-declaration regarding age, unsupported by primary evidence, is insufficient to override established identity documents that consistently reflect a date of birth.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural context and relief sought in writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments surrounding contradictory date of birth evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. service records override self-declarations without documentary proof. (Para 8)
4. dismissal of the writ petition and final order. (Para 9)

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

It is, therefore prayed that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice of Rule-NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order of superannuation as per Annexure-6 shall not be quashed and the petitioner shall not be re-instated in service with all benefits and upon their showing no cause or insufficient cause make the said Rule absolute and pass any other appropriate order for ends of justice;

And pass such other order/orders or to issue such other writ/writs, as would afford, complete relief to the petitioner;

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 13.06.2023, so passed by Opp. Party No.3, contended that Petitioner entered into service as a DLR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3, on 02.08.1993. It is contended that while entering into such engagement as a DLR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3, Petitioner indicated his date of birth by filing a self declaration as 14.05.1975.

4.1. It is further contended that even though Petitioner was allowed to continue as a DLR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3, with effect from 02.08.1993 and he was not regularized on the face of the communication issued under Annexure-3, wherein the date of birth of the Petitioner was taken as 14.05.1975, Petitioner instead of being regularized in terms of Order dated 30.09.2021, so passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30320 of 2021, was brought over to the Work Charged establishment with effect from 11.09.2022, vide order dated 31.05.2023 under Annexure-5.

4.2. It is contended that Petitioner was allowed to join in the Work Charged establishment in terms of the Order issued under Annexure-5 and on the very next date, he was made to retire from Municipal service, with effect from 30.09.2022, vide the impugned order dated 01.06.2023 and by taking the Date of birth of the Petitioner as 20.03.1955.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since basing on the self declaration given by the Petitioner, his Date of birth was accepted as 14.05.1975 and the same was also reflected in the communication issued under Annexure-3 by taking his Date of birth as 20.03.1955, he could not have been made to retire with effect from 30.09.2022, vide the impugned order dated 01.06.2023 under Annexure-6. It is accordingly, contended that the impugned order requires interference of this Court and Petitioner be allowed to continue till he attain the age of superannuation by taking his date of birth as 14.05.1975, so reflected in Annexure-3.

5. Mr. D.K. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.3 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, so filed by Opp. Party No.3.

Basing on the counter affidavit it is contended that pursuant to the communication issued under Annexure-3 and while complying the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30320 of 2021, Petitioner when was directed to produce the documents in support of his Date of birth, Petitioner produced the Aadhaar Card, Voter ID Card, and the PAN Card, so enclosed under Annexure-A/1, in support of his Date of birth. In all those documents, the Date of birth of the Petitioner shown as 20.03.1955. It is accordingly contended that since in the documents so produced by the Petitioner in support of his date of birth,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3227

ORISSA HIGH COURTBiraja Prasanna Satapathy, JRilu Naik – AppellantVersusState of Odisha – RespondentW.P.(C) No. 29942 of 2023

Cases Referred (2)

ORISSA HIGH COURT
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J
Rilu Naik – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 29942 of 2023