Jambeshwar Lal Meshram S/o Pyare Lal Meshram, Aged About 60 Years Posted As Deputy v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Atal
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.04 18:58:35 +0530 2025:CGHC:38192 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5139 of 2023 Jambeshwar Lal Meshram S/o Pyare Lal Meshram, Aged About 60 Years Posted As Deputy Jail Superintendent Jail, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) R/o Gram Panchayat Jepra, Tehsil Charaama, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General, Jail (Prisons) And Correctional Services, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Deputy Inspector General, Jail (Prisons) And Correctional Services, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 01.08.2025 1 Heard Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ashustosh Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. 2 The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the Impugned letter dated 12/04/2023 sent to the Petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General whereby rejected the representation made by the petitioner [ANNEXURE P/1]. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider petitioner's date of birth as 26.02.1963 in place of 27/02/1962. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner was initially appointed in Government service on 11.11.1991 and is presently discharging his duties as Deputy Jail Superintendent at District Jail, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the incorrect entry of his date of birth in the service records, wherein it has been erroneously mentioned as 27.02.1962 instead of his actual and correct date of birth 26.02.1963. It is submitted that at the time of initial school admission in Class I in the year 1968, the date of birth of the petitioner was correctly recorded as 26.02.1963 in the Admission Register (Dakhil Khajri) maintained by the school, bearing serial number 1668. Furthermore, the same date of birth 3 has been consistently mentioned in the admission record of Class
Legal Reasoning
VI as well. It is well settled that the entry in the Dakhil Khajri, being a primary document prepared at the time of first admission, holds high evidentiary value and is one of the most reliable documents for verification of date of birth. It is further submitted that in the Final Examination Marksheet of Class X, the date of birth of the petitioner has been correctly recorded as 26.02.1963, thereby reaffirming the petitioner’s claim regarding his actual date of birth. Learned counsel submits that the incorrect entry of date of birth as 27.02.1962 seems to have originated due to a typographical error in the Class IX merit list, which was subsequently carried forward in the Higher Secondary School Examination Certificate issued in the year 1981. Based on this erroneous school record, the incorrect date was entered in the petitioner’s service record. To rectify the said mistake, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the Executive Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa, narrating the factual position and placing reliance on the correct documents. The petitioner also submitted an affidavit affirming that his actual date of birth is 26.02.1963 and requested for necessary correction in the relevant educational and service records. Additionally, the petitioner submitted an application in prescribed format bearing No. R-0015 before the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur, on 27.02.2023, seeking rectification of the date of birth mentioned in the Higher Secondary Certificate. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner’s claim is 4 genuine, bonafide, and supported by contemporaneous and unimpeachable documentary evidence. The erroneous entry in the service record is purely due to clerical mistake, which deserves to be corrected in the interest of justice and equity. Hence, the petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the concerned authorities to correct his date of birth in the official service records from 27.02.1962 to 26.02.1963. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that 5 Learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and submits that the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the service book is 27.02.1962, based on the Higher Secondary School Certificate issued in the year 1981, which is the primary document relied upon at the time of appointment. It is submitted that the petitioner, having joined service in 1991, has raised this issue after more than 30 years, which suffers from unexplained delay and laches. No objection was raised at the time of appointment or thereafter for decades. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s reliance on school admission registers (Dakhil Khajri) or Class X mark sheet cannot override the date recorded in the Higher Secondary Certificate, which remains the final and official record unless modified by the Board. Moreover, at the fag end of 5 service, such correction in the date of birth is not permissible; as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 6 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
Decision
perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7 It is a settled position of law that no correction in the date of birth should be allowed at the verge of retirement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423, has held that an application for correction of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not maintainable and should be rejected on the ground of delay and laches alone, as it disturbs the settled service conditions and has a cascading effect on the cadre management. 8 Recently in the matter of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja and others, (2021) 12 SCC 27, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at paragraphs 10 to 12 observing as follows :- “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 No.1 – employee was not entitled to any relief or change of date of birth on the ground of delay and laches as the request for change of date of birth was made after lapse of 24 years since he joined the service. At this stage, few decisions of this 6 court on the issue of correction of the date of birth are required to be referred to. 10.1 In the case of Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155, it is observed and held as under: “7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever…” 10.2 In the case of State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 in paragraph 8 and 12, it is observed and held as under:- “8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end 7 of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993) 2 SCC 162). x x x 8 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book.” 10.3 In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others v. R. Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781, it is observed as under:- “5. The law with regard to correction of date of birth has been time and again discussed by this Court and held that once the date of birth is entered in the service record, as per the educational certificates and accepted 9 by the employee, the same cannot be changed. Not only that, this Court has also held that a claim for change in date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of retirement” 10.4 In the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 of which one of us (Justice A.S. Bopanna) was a party to the bench has observed and held in paragraph 9 & 10 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 the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble (2010)14 SCC 423 wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder: “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 [(2005) 11 SCC465: 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. 10 17. In another judgment in 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 nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades. x x x 19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Deptt.v. R. Kirubakaran [1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (1994) 26 ATC 828] reads as under: (SCC pp. 158 59, para 7) “7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service]. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, 11 inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotion forever. … According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. … the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book.” “10. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of 12 M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 it is held as hereunder:- “8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid 13 of those who sleepover their rights” (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ). x x x 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book.” 11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under: 14 (i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. 12. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, the application of the respondent for change of date of birth was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also and therefore as such respondent employee was not entitled to the decree of declaration and therefore the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and not tenable at law.” 9 In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The claim for correction of date of birth in the service records, raised at the fag end of service, suffers from inordinate delay and laches and is not supported by any conclusive or revised official record issued by the competent authority. 15 10 In the present case, the petitioner has neither produced any legally admissible document overriding the date recorded in his Higher Secondary School Certificate nor shown any justifiable reason for the long delay in approaching this Court. 11 In light of the above-stated factual position, and considering the fact that the petitioner has challenged the recorded date of birth at the verge of retirement, and that disputed questions of fact are involved which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, this Court finds no ground to entertain the petition. 12 Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge