The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24403 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Article 226 and Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ……………… Prabir Kumar Muduli Petitioner …. -versus- Food Corporation of India & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s. L. Pangari, Sr. Adv. along with S. Mishra, A. Sahoo, Adv. For Opp. Parties : M/s. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with along with Mr. B.K. Padhi, CGC M/s. A.K. Mishra, S. Mishra & A. Mishra, Adv. PRESENT: THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 29.10.2025 and Date of Judgment: 28.11.2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging order dtd.26.12.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No.2, under Anexure-29, wherein claim // 2 // of the Petitioner for change of his Date of Birth in his service record was rejected. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner entered into service as a Mate/WMC System Worker, where he joined on 17.01.1991. While joining under the Corporation, in the service record so opened, Petitioner’s Date of Birth was recorded as 05.08.1966. Petitioner also completed the required probation on 16.01.1992. 2.1. It is contended that while so continuing, Petitioner appeared the Annual High School Certificate Examination (ex-regular) held in the month of October, 1992, so conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. In the Board Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner, taking into account the Date of Birth recorded in the School Register under Annexure-1, Petitioner’s Date of Birth was recorded as 27.04.1972 vide the H.S.C pass certificate issued under Annexure-2. Page 2 of 38 // 3 // 2.2. It is contended that while so continuing and after passing his H.S.C Examination as an ex-regular candidate in the examination held in October, 1992, Petitioner while complying the request made by the Corporation in its Circular dt.05.12.1994 under Annexure-3, submitted an affidavit before the Manager (Depot) of the Corporation indicating therein that his correct Date of Birth is 27.04.1972 in place of 05.08.1966. Affidavit so sworn by the Petitioner under Annexure-4, was also submitted on the very same date before the Manager (Depot) of the Corporation. It is also contended that similar affidavit was also submitted before the Manager (Depot) of the Corporation so sworn on 20.12.2003 under Annexure-5 and 11.08.2009 under Annexure-6. 2.3. It is contended that affidavit sworn on 11.08.2009 under Annexure-6 with the representation made by the Petitioner for change of his Date of Birth as 27.04.1972 in place of 05.08.1966, was forwarded to the General Manager, Food Corporation of India- Opp. Party No.2, by the Manager, District Office, Page 3 of 38 // 4 // Sambalpur vide letter dt.01.09.2009 under Annexure- 7. However, on the face of such request being forwarded under Annexure-7, when no action was taken, Petitioner moved Opp. Party No.2 vide his letter under Annexure-8. 2.4. It is contended that request for change of the Date of Birth of the Petitioner, was also forwarded by the Manager (Depot) of the Corporation at Balijhori to the Area Manager of the Corporation vide letter dt.22.05.2015 under Annexure-9. Not only that, further request was made for consideration of the claim of the Petitioner for change of his Date of Birth vide letter dt.01.06.2015 under Annexure-10 to Opp. Party No.2. 2.5. It is also contended that vide letter dt.13.07.2016 under Annexure-11 and letter dt.15.05.2019 under Annexure-14, claim of the Petitioner for change of his Date of Birth was not only forwarded by the Manager (Depot), but also vide letter dt.04.10.2018 under Annexure-13, the Area Manager of the Corporation was moved with similar request. Page 4 of 38 // 5 // 2.6. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that taking into account the Date of Birth recorded in the H.S.C Certificate so issued under Annexure-2, in all the certificates issued by the Government namely Aadhar, PAN Card and Voter I.D card, Date of Birth of the Petitioner has been recorded as 27.04.1972 under Annexure-15 series. But on the face of such documents being produced and communicated at different point of time starting from 1994 till 2019, no step was taken to correct the Date of Birth of the Petitioner in his service record. 2.7. Petitioner accordingly once again moved Opp. Party No.3 vide his letter dt.12.08.2021 under Annexure-16, with a prayer to change his Date of Birth. Such application of the Petitioner submitted under Annexure-16, was forwarded to the Assistant General Manager, Kolkata vide letter dt.04.09.2021 under Annexure-17 and letter dt.23.10.2021 under Annexure-18. But on the face of such request being made time and again, no action was taken to correct the Date of Birth of the Petitioner so reflected in his Page 5 of 38 // 6 // H.S.C Pass Certificate. It is also contended that taking into account the prayer made for correction of Date of Birth and pending such correction, salary of the Petitioner was also withheld w.e.f November, 2021, as per the instruction of the higher office, as reflected in Annexure-23. 2.8. Learned Sr. Counsel contended that on being so harassed by the Opp. Party-Corporation in not correcting the Date of Birth of the Petitioner as well as withholding the salary from November, 2021, Petitioner again moved Opp. Party No.2 vide his letter dt.13.07.2022 under Annexure-25, with a prayer to correct his Date of Birth and to release his salary from November, 2021. Request made by the Petitioner in his representation under Annexure-25 though was forwarded vide letter dt.14.07.2022 under Annexure- 26 along with the pay slip from November, 2021 onwards vide Annexure-27, no action was taken on the same. Petitioner accordingly approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.26293 of 2021. This Court vide order dt.02.11.2022, while disposing the Writ Page 6 of 38 // 7 // Petition directed Opp. Party No.3 therein to consider the application submitted by the Petitioner on 13.07.2022 under Annexure-25 (Annexure-11 to the earlier Writ Petition). But vide the impugned order dt.26.12.2022 under Annexure-29, claim of the Petitioner for correction of his Date of Birth was rejected. 2.9. It is contended that claim of the Petitioner for such correction of his Date of birth was rejected inter alia on the ground that such application for change of Date of Birth of the Petitioner was made in the year
Facts
2009 for the first time, even though Petitioner joined the Corporation in the year 1991. It is also contended that even after passing his H.S.C Examination in the year 1992 with his Date of Birth as 27.04.1972, Petitioner while submitting the CPF nomination form in the year 1995, indicated his Date of Birth as 05.08.1966, which was submitted by him at the time of his initial joining in the Corporation on 17.01.1991. 2.10. While assailing the impugned rejection, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended Page 7 of 38 // 8 // that even though while joining in the Corporation in the year 1991, Petitioner’s Date of Birth was recorded as 05.08.1966, but in the School Admission Register so enclosed vide Annexure-1, Petitioner’s Date of Birth is recorded as 27.04.1972. Petitioner with such Date of Birth, not only passed the H.S.C examination as an ex-regular candidate in the Examination held in October, 1992, but in the H.S.C Pass Certificate, his Date of Birth was recorded as 27.04.1972. 2.11. After passing his H.S.C examination with his Date of Birth as 27.04.1972, Petitioner while making an affidavit on 31.12.1994, submitted the same before the concerned Depot Manager of the Corporation under Annexure-4. Since the prayer made by the Petitioner for change of his Date of Birth was kept pending, while submitting his CPF nomination form in the year 1995 through the Union, the Date of Birth of the Petitioner was reflected as 05.08.1966. But by the time such nomination form was submitted by the Union, Petitioner had already made an application for change of his Date of birth to 27.04.1972. Page 8 of 38 // 9 // 2.12. It is also contended that Petitioner’s after passing his H.S.C Examination in the examination held in the month of October, 1992, submitted the affidavit sworn on 31.12.1994 under Annesxure-4 before the concerned Manager (Depot) of the Corporation. Petitioner thereafter submitted another affidavit before the self-same authority on 20.12.2003 under Anexure-5 and another affidavit on 11.08.2009 authority under Annexure-6. 2.13. Only after receipt of the affidavit under Annexure-6, claim of the Petitioner was forwarded by the District Office, Sambalpur to Opp. party No.2 vide letter dt.01.09.2009 under Annexure-7. Therefore, it cannot be held that Petitioner for the first time raised his claim for correction of his Date of Birth in the year 2009, even though he entered into service in the year 1991. 2.14. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Date of Birth recorded in the H.S.C pass Certificate is to be taken as the Date of Birth of the Petitioner for all purposes and the said Date of Page 9 of 38 // 10 // Birth has been duly indicated in all relevant certificates issued by the Government under Annexure-15 series. However, claim of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground indicated in Annexure-29, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 2.15. A further submission was also made that vide letter dt.01.12.2009 under Annexure-7, though the claim of the Petitioner along with one Trilochan Pradhan was forwarded, for such change of Date of
Legal Reasoning
in the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board, the date of the birth of the Petitioner is recorded on 01.06.1965. As found in the Service Book, the same date has been wrongly recorded as 06.01.1965. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of The Management of M/s. Tata Refractories Ltd. Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 7252 of 2014) decided on 14.12.2022, further decision of this Court in W.P.C. (OAS) No. 50 of 2018 on 12.04.2024. date of birth recorded in the HSC pass certificate is to be taken as the date of birth for all purposes. The view taken by this Court in Para 5 of the order dtd. 12.04.2024 reads as follows:- 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that Petitioner while entered into service as a Peon, he had not passed the HSC examination and in the service Book so opened under Annexure-8, his Date of birth was recorded as 12.07.1948. But as found from the HSC Pass Certificate issued by the Board under Annexure-1 as well as Transfer Certificate issued by the School under Annexure-2, the date of birth of Petitioner is recorded as 12.07.1950. The said date of Birth was also recorded rightly in the Service Book opened in favour Page 8 of 9 of the petitioner under Annexure-4, after he joined as a Diarist-cum-Typist on 15.02.1973. Placing reliance on the decision as cited supra, this Court is of the view that date of birth recorded in the HSC Pass Certificate is to be taken as the Date of birth for all purposes." 2.18. Learned Sr. Counsel accordingly contended that the ground on which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-29 is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 3. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand while supporting Page 12 of 38 // 13 // the impugned rejection, made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. 3.1. It is contended that Petitioner while entering into service on 17.01.1991, while submitting his Bio-data, Petitioner indicated his Date of Birth as 05.08.1966. It is also contended that even though Petitioner passed his H.S.C examination in the examination held in October 1992 with his date of birth as 28.04.1972, but pursuant to the letter issued on 05.12.1994 under Annexure-3, Petitioner while submitting his CPF nomination form on 23.04.1995, he indicated his Date of Birth as 05.08.1966, that was submitted by him in his Bio-Data, while entering into service on 17.01.1991. 3.2. It is contended that since on the face of the certificate issued by the Board under Annexure-2, Petitioner while submitting the CPF nomination on 23.04.1995 under Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, indicated his Date of Birth as 05.08.1966 as like the Bio-Data submitted under Annexure-A, Petitioner’s claim for correction of his Date of Birth Page 13 of 38 // 14 // has been rightly rejected vide the impugned rejection available under Annexure-29. 3.3. A further submission was also made that, affidavit sworn by the Petitioner and annexed vide Annexures-4 & 5 were never submitted before the Manager (Depot) as no such posts was available under the Corporation during the relevant point of time. It is further contended that Petitioner only made an application in the year 2009 for change of his Date of Birth, which was forwarded by the District office, Sambalpur vide letter dt.01.09.2009 under Annexure- 7. Since Petitioner’s claim for change of Date of Birth was made in the year 2009 for the first time, even though he passed the H.S.C examination in the year 1992, on the face of the nomination form submitted by him under Annexure-C, his prayer for correction of his Date of Birth is not at all entertainable as it is at the fag-end of his career. 3.4. It is accordingly contended that because of such delayed approach of the Petitioner in making the application after 19 years of his service in the year Page 14 of 38 // 15 // 2009, Petitioner’s claim being a belated claim, such claim is not entertainable, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad and Others, (2000) 8 SCC 696, State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664, Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others, Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411, L.P.A No.81 of 2025, Uma Ram Vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad and others and LPA No.523 of 2024, Shiv Kumar Paswan Vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad decided by the High Court of Jharakhand on 22.08.2025. 3.5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shib Kumar Dushad in paragraphs-15 & 16 has held as follows: 15. Before entering into the question of validity and sustainability of the judgment passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in this case we would like to make the observation that in a case where the controversy over the date of birth of an employee has been Page 15 of 38 // 16 // the in exercise of the High Court therein should be the relevant aspects raised long after joining the service and the matter has engaged the attention of the authority concerned and has been determined by following the procedure prescribed under the service rules or general instructions issued by the employer and it is not the case of the employee that there or has been any arithmetical mistake typographical error patent on the face of the record, its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the decision of the employer. 16. In the present case the core question is two certificates subsequently whether obtained by the respondent on 9-6-1973 and on 3-11-1983 should be accepted and the date of birth entered taken as conclusive. This question is essentially one of fact. Determination of the question requires detailed enquiry into relevant factual matters. Without intending to be exhaustive it can be said that some of to be considered in such a matter is whether the certificates have been issued by an authority competent to issue the same under any statute or statutory rules; whether the authority issuing the certificate is required under the statute or rules to enquire into the question of the date of birth of the person before issuing the certificate and on such enquiry the authority has found the date of birth to be as entered in the certificate or the the entry has been made merely on disclosure made by the holder of the certificate. In the former case some sanctity may be attached to the entry regarding date of birth in the certificate though it is not conclusive. In the latter case the entry having been based on a declaration/disclosure made by the holder of the certificate himself without any enquiry on the part of the authority concerned is of little avail when a dispute regarding the date of birth arises for determination. It is relevant to note here that one of the objections raised on behalf of the appellant against the certificates in question is that the certificates were not issued by the Manager of the colliery who was the competent authority in the matter. If the respondent was basing his case on these documents then it was incumbent upon him to place evidence on record, Page 16 of 38 // 17 // materials from which a conclusion can be reasonably drawn that the date of birth as entered in the certificate is the correct one. Similar is the position regarding the document purportedly issued by the Headmaster of Adarsh Madhya Vidyalaya in which the respondent is alleged to have studied. This document is stated to be a School Leaving Certificate in which 1946 is entered as the year of birth of the respondent. There is no material on record to show that when this document was issued to the respondent; he had produced a copy of the same when he entered service in the private colliery (Chirkunda Coal Company) in support of his age and if so why was the document not sent with the service records when the service of the respondent was taken over by the appellant. These are some of the questions consideration of which will depend on the evidence, either oral or documentary to be placed by the parties. The High Court in writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for undertaking such an into disputed questions of fact. At this stage it is relevant to state that if the respondent’s date of birth is taken to be 9-2-1946 then he would have been 14 years of age when he joined service in 1960. No material is available on record that the industrial undertaking in which the respondent joined service was legally permitted to employ a minor. Indeed this fact has been taken note of by the Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment and on that basis the Division Bench modified the judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that the respondent’s date of birth should be so determined as to fit it with the position that the respondent was 16 years of age at the time of joining service. Unfortunately, the judgment of the Division Bench does not discuss any material on the basis of which the Court took such a view. Wherefrom the Court got 16 years as the minimum prescribed age for joining service is not indicated in the judgment. inquiry 3.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Premlal Shrivas, in paragraphs-8,12 & 15 has held as follows: Page 17 of 38 // 18 // in accordance with 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 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 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 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ). 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 the recorded date of birth Page 18 of 38 // 19 // error in recording of his date of birth in the service book. 15. In Commr. of Police v. Bhagwan V. Lahane [(1997) 1 SCC 247 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 719] this Court has held that for an employee seeking the correction of his date of birth, it is a condition precedent that he must show, that the incorrect recording of the date of birth was made due to negligence of some other person, or that the same was an obvious clerical error failing which the relief should not be granted to him. 3.7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shyam Kishore Singh, in paragraphs-7 to 14 has held as follows: In the time of joining employment. 7. The fact that the respondent had joined the services of the appellants on 1-3-1982 is the accepted position. Though the respondent relies on the matriculation certificate to indicate that the date of birth stated therein is 20-1-1955, there is no material on record to indicate that the said document had been produced before the employer at that background, the service record maintained by the appellants will disclose that the date of birth indicated in the document is 4-3-1950 which had been furnished by the respondent himself as the relevant forms under his signature contain the said date. Though the respondent contended that the High Court had noticed certain alteration of the date of birth as indicated in Form “B” the relevance of the said document cannot be considered without reference to the other documents in the service records. The very through his representation made in the year 2009 was seeking for change of the entry relating to date of birth will indicate that what was contained in the service records is 4-3-1950, which was the position from 27-2-1982. learned counsel respondent that fact the the for 8. In the above background it is to be noticed as to whether the consideration as made by the High Court is justified. The learned counsel for the respondent with specific reference to para 10 in the Page 19 of 38 // 20 // form indicating the nomination order [Shyam Kishore Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 3061] of the learned Single Judge referred to the aspect wherein the learned Single Judge has taken note of the representation made by the respondent in the year 2009 and the verification that was secured by the appellants from the Bihar School Examination Board. Though such reference is made, in our opinion, the same was not appropriate in the present facts when three decades had elapsed from the date of employment. The position is well established that if a particular date of birth is entered in the service register, a change sought cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during entire service. In the instant facts the position is that the respondent entered service on 1-3-1982. The date of birth entered as 4-3-1950 has remained on record from the said date. The requirement to submit the particulars of the family and the nominee was complied with and it was submitted by the respondent on 25-5-1998. In the said nomination form the date of birth of the employee was required to be mentioned, wherein the respondent in his own handwriting has indicated the date of birth as 4-3-1950. Apart learned Additional Solicitor General would also point out that since there was a change in the method of maintaining the service register, all the employees were provided an opportunity to verify and seek for change in the service record in the year 1987. At that stage also the respondent did not seek for any change. Therefore, in that circumstance, when the opportunity available at the first instance in 1987 had not been availed and thereafter on 25-5-1998 when the respondent himself in the Provident Fund nomination form had indicated the date of birth as 4-3-1950 which corresponds to the date of birth entered in the service register as on the date of commencement of the employment, merely because a verification was made from the Bihar School Examination Board and even if it was confirmed that the date of birth was 20-1-1955 such change at that stage was not permissible. 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 from fact, that the Page 20 of 38 // 21 // to relied on (L&S) 106] the decision relief was denied regard 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 the SCC government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment [Pitamber Dutt Semwal v. State of U.P., 1999 SCC OnLine All 1610 : 2000 All LJ 2341] of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades. *** 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 [Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449] 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, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, Page 21 of 38 // 22 // in nature, is made out by 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 promotions 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 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 M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 574] it is held as hereunder : (SCC pp. 667 & 669, paras 8 & 12) on the eve “8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly 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 Page 22 of 38 // 23 // 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 [Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375] ). *** the 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 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. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Laxman [Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Laxman, (2020) 3 SCC 419] dated 25-4-2019 wherein the belated claim was not entertained. Further reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Ram Samugh Yadav [Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Ram Samugh Yadav, (2020) 3 SCC 421] dated 27-5- 2019 wherein this Court has held as hereunder : (SCC p. 422, paras 6-7) “6. Nothing is on record that in the year 1987 when the opportunity was given to Respondent 1, to raise any issue/dispute regarding the service record more particularly his date of birth in the service record, no such issue/dispute was raised. Only one year prior to his superannuation, Respondent 1 Page 23 of 38 // 24 // raised the dispute which can be said to be belated dispute and therefore, the learned Single Judge [Ram Samujh Jadav v. Coal India Ltd., WP No. 215 of 2006, order dated 28-8-2007 (Cal)] as well as the employer was justified in refusing to accept such an issue. 7. The Division Bench of the High Court [Ram Samujh Yadav v. Coal India Ltd. APO No. 334 of 2009, order dated 6-10-2010 (Cal)] has, therefore, committed a grave error in directing the appellant to correct the date of birth of Respondent 1 in the service record after number of years and that too when the issue was raised only one year prior to his superannuation and as observed hereinabove no dispute was raised earlier.” 12. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has relied upon the decision of this Court relating the very same employer, namely, the appellants herein in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw [Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw, (2014) 12 SCC 570 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 725] wherein this Court with reference to the earlier decisions of this Court has upheld the order [Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw, 2010 SCC OnLine Jhar 1228] of the High Court wherein a direction had been issued to effect the change in the date of birth. Having perused the same we are of the opinion that the said decision cannot render assistance to the respondent herein. This is for the reason that in the said case it was taken note that in 1987 on implementation of the National Coal Wage Agreement III was put into operation for stabilising the service records of the employees and all its employees were provided a chance to identify and rectify the discrepancies in the service records by providing them a nomination form containing details of their service records. In the cited case the respondent (employee) therein had noticed the inconsistencies in the records regarding his date of birth, date of appointment, father’s name and permanent address and availed the opportunity to seek correction. Though he had sought for the correction of the errors, the other discrepancies were set right but the date of birth and the date of appointment had however remained unchanged and it is in that view the employee had again raised a dispute regarding the same and the judicial remedy was sought wherein the benefit was extended to him. Page 24 of 38 // 25 // 13. On the other hand, in the instant case, as on the date of joining and as also in the year 1987 when the respondent had an opportunity to fill up the nomination form and rectify the defect if any, he had indicated the date of birth as 4-3-1950 and had further reiterated the same when Provident Fund nomination form was filled in 1998. It is only after more than 30 years from the date of his joining service, for the first time in the year 2009 he the the had made respondent did not avail the judicial remedy immediately thereafter, before retirement. Instead, the respondent retired from service on 31-3-2010 and even thereafter the writ petition was filed only in the year 2014, after four years from the date of his retirement. In that circumstance, the indulgence shown to the respondent by the High Court was not justified. representation. Further 14. Hence, the order dated 13-10-2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Shyam Kishore Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. [Shyam Kishore Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 3061] and the order dated 19-2-2019 passed by the Division Bench in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh [Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 2412] are not sustainable.” 3.8. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the High Court of Jharkhand, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that since claim for change of date of birth was made after about 19 years of entering into service and on the face of the date of birth indicated in the nomination form under Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, such claim of the Page 25 of 38 // 26 // Petitioner being a belated claim, is not at all entertainable and the same has been rightly rejected. 3.9. With regard to the stand taken in the Writ Petition, regarding the claim of Sri Trilochan Pradhan allowed vide order dt.17/18.11.2021 under Annexure- 31, it was contended that such claim of Sri Trilochan Pradhan was allowed, as he had already passed the H.S.C examination by the time he entered into service. But since in the instant case, Petitioner appeared the H.S.C examination after his joining in the Corporation on 17.01.1991, Petitioner in order to get undue advantage, has manipulated his Date of Birth in the School record and consequentially in the Board Certificate issued under Annexures-1 & 2, by taking his Date of Birth as 27.04.1972 in place of 05.08.1966. 3.10. It is also contended that even though Petitioner passed the H.S.C examination in the exam held in October, 1992, but while submitting the nomination form on 23.04.1995 under Annexure-C, since Petitioner once again indicated his Date of Birth Page 26 of 38 // 27 // as 05.08.1966, it is to be held that the Date of Birth reflected in the H.S.C. Certificate under Annexure-2 is a manipulated one and Petitioner wants to take advantage of the same for the purpose of continuing in service beyond his date of superannuation, which falls due on 31.08.2026. It is accordingly contended that claim of the Petitioner has been rightly rejected and it requires no interference of this Court. 4. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission taking into account the stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit and further affidavit filed. 4.1. With regard to the stand taken by the Corporation that Petitioner never submitted any claim vide Annexure-4 before the Manager (Depot), as no such authority is available in the Corporation, it is contended that no such document has been enclosed to the counter affidavit inter alia showing that no such post was available in the year 1994. Since no such document has been enclosed showing that post of Page 27 of 38 // 28 // Manager(Depot) was not there in the Corporation in the year 1994, such plea raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation cannot be accepted. 4.2. It is also contended that claim of the Petitioner was forwarded by the Manager (Depot) of the Corporation vide letter issued on 22.05.2015 under Annexure-9 and vide letter dt.13.07.2016 under Annexure-11 as well as letter dt.15.05.2019 under Annexure-14 and letter dt.19.04.2022 under Annexure-22. It is accordingly contended that the plea taken by the Corporation that no such claim was made by the Petitioner after swearing of the affidavit under Annexure-4 before the Manager (Depot) on the ground that such post is not available in the Corporation, cannot be accepted. 4.3. It is also contended that on the face of the Date of Birth recorded in the H.S.C Pass Certificate issued under Annexure-2, Petitioner in absence of acceptance of his prayer so made under Annexure-4, while submitting the CPF nomination Form under Page 28 of 38 // 29 // Annexure-C to the counter, the Union insisted to indicate the Date of birth already in the service record for smooth release of his salary and other financial benefits. It is contended that since such a nomination was submitted through the Union and by the time Annexure-C was submitted, claim of the Petitioner for correction of his Date of Birth was not acceded to, Petitioner had no other option than to indicate his Date of birth as 05.08.1966 so indicated by him in his Bio-Data, while entering into service in the year 1991 under Annexure-A. 4.4. It is also contended that the stand taken by the Corporation, while rejecting the Petitioner’s claim that Petitioner raised such a claim in the year 2009 for the first time, is also not acceptable on the face of the submission of the affidavits under Annexures-4 to 6 before the Manager(Depot) of the Corporation. However, such affidavit submitted by the Petitioner on 11.08.2009 under Annexure-6 was only forwarded vide letter dt.01.09.2009 under Annexure-7. Page 29 of 38 // 30 // 4.5. Therefore, no fault lies with the Petitioner for making such a claim in the year 2009, on the face of his earlier request made in the year 1994 under Annexure-4 and in the year 2003 under Annexure-5. It is also contended that since similar prayer has been allowed vide order under Annexure-31 in respect of similarly situated employee, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim on the ground indicated in the impugned order under Annexure-29 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.6. It is also contended that in the meantime vide letter dt.01.03.2024 under Annexure-34, Petitioner has been issued with the notice of superannuation fixing his date of retirement as 31.08.1966 by taking his Date of Birth as 05.08.1966. It is also contended that since Date of Birth recorded in the H.S.C pass certificate is the date of birth to be taken into consideration for all purposes, in view of the decisions of this Court so cited supra, prayer of the Petitioner is required to be allowed with quashing of the impugned order under Annexure-29. Page 30 of 38 // 31 // 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that the Petitioner entered into service as Mate/WMF System Worker under the Corporation on 17.01.1991. Petitioner completed his probation in the post of Ancillary on 16.01.1992. As found, while entering into service under the Corporation on 17.01.1991, while submitting the Bio-Data vide Annexure-A, Petitioner indicated his date of Birth as 05.08.1966. 5.1. However, it is not disputed that Petitioner passed his H.S.C examination as an ex-regular candidate in the exam held by the Board in the month of October, 1992 and in the Certificate issued under Annexure-2, his Date of Birth is recorded as 27.04.1972. Such Date of Birth of the Petitioner as 27.04.1972 is also reflected in the School Certificate issued by the concerned School under Anneuxre-1. It is also found that after obtaining the certificate from Board under Annexure-2, Petitioner by making an affidavit on 31.12.1994 under Annexure-4, prayed for correction Page 31 of 38 // 32 // of his Date of Birth as 27.04.1972 in place of 05.08.1966 and the said affidavit was submitted before the Manager(Depot) of the Corporation. 5.2. It is also found that similar affidavit made by the Petitioner on 20.12.2003 under Annexure-5 was duly submitted before the self-same Manager(Depot) of the Corporation. However, similar affidavit made by the Petitioner on 11.08.2009 under Annexure-6, so submitted before the self-same Manager (depot) of the Corporation, was forwarded and on receipt of such claim of the Petitioner, vide letter dt.01.09.2009 under Anexure-7, claim of the Petitioner was forwarded to the Office of Opp. Party No.2, by the Area Manager of the District Office, Sambalpur along with the claim of another employee namely; Shri Trilochan Pradhan. 5.3. Even though such a request was forwarded vide letter dt.01.09.2009 under Annexure-7, but it is found that on the face of the communications made in between the Opp. Parties and its Officers, claim of the Petitioner was never considered with passing of any order. Page 32 of 38 // 33 // 5.4. However, it is found that in various documents issued by the Government under Annexure-15 series, Date of Birth of the Petitioner has been recorded as 27.04.1972. However, on the face of such communications made in between the Petitioner and the Corporation starting from letter dt.01.09.2009 under Annexure-7 till 13.07.2022 under Annexure-25, when no action was taken, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C ) No.26293 of 2023. This Court vide order dt.02.11.2022 when directed the Opp. Party-Corporation to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim so made in his representation dt.13.07.2022 under Annexure-25, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dt.26.12.2022 of Opp. party No.2 under Annexure-29. 5.5. It is found that claim of the Petitioner was rejected inter alia on 2(two) grounds i.e. Petitioner even though passed H.S.C examination in the year 1992, he made a prayer for change of his Date of Birth only in the year 2009, which is a belated claim. Another ground has been taken inter alia indicating Page 33 of 38 // 34 // that on the face of his passing the H.S.C examination in the examination held in October, 1992, while submitting the CPF nomination form under Annexure- C to the counter, Petitioner again indicated his Date of Birth as 05.08.1966 in place of 27.04.1972. It is however found that similar claim forwarded vide letter under Annexure-7 in respect of one Trilochan Pradhan was allowed by the Corporation vide its order dtd.17/18.11.2021 under Annexure-31. 5.6. This Court taking into account the materials available on record finds that Petitioner immediately after passing his HSC examination in the examination held in October, 1992 and on receipt of the Certificate under Annexure-2 with its issuance on 30.12.1992, submitted the affidavit on 31.12.1994 under Annexure-4 before the Manager(Depot) of the Corporation with a prayer to change his Date of Birth as 27.04.1972. Similar affidavit with similar request sworn on 23.12.2003 was also submitted before the Manager (Depot) under Anexure-5 and on 11.08.2009 before the self-same authority under Anexure-6. Page 34 of 38 // 35 // 5.7. It is found that last such affidavit submitted on 11.08.2009 was forwarded to the Office of Opp. Party No.2 vide letter dt.01.09.2009 under Annexure-7 along with similar claim of one Trilochan Pradhan. The claim of Trilochan Pradhan was allowed vide order dt17/18.11.2021 under Annexure-31, but such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-29 on the ground that Petitioner’s claim is a belated claim having been made after 19 years of his service under the Corporation and on the face of Annexure-2, while submitting the nomination form under Annexure-C in the year 1995, Petitioner indicated his Date of Birth as 05.08.1966 in place of 27.04.1972. 5.8. This Court taking into account the materials available on record, is of the view that Petitioner after passing his H.S.C examination in the exam held in October, 1992 submitted the affidavit on 31.12.1994 under Annexure-4 before the Manager(Depot) of the Corporation. Similar affidavit submitted before the self-same authority under Annexures-5 & 6 was also Page 35 of 38 // 36 // made by the Petitioner and last such affidavit submitted before the Manager (Depot) under Annexure-6 was only forwarded along with the application of the Petitioner vide letter dt.01.09.2009 under Annexure-7. 5.9. Since claim of the Petitioner at different point of time has been forwarded by the Manager (Depot) of the Corporation vide letter under Anexure-9,11,14 & 22, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the counsel appearing for the Corporation that no such post of Manager (Depot) is available in the Corporation. It is also found that Petitioner made his claim for change of Date of Birth by making the affidavit duly submitted before the Manager (Depot) on 31.12.1994 under Annexure-4. 5.10.Therefore, the plea taken in the impugned order that petitioner raised such a claim only in the year 2009, after 19 years of his service, is not acceptable to this Court. It is found and it is the view of this Court that since prayer made by the Petitioner for change of his Date of Birth to 27.04.1972 on Page 36 of 38 // 37 // 31.12.1994 under Annexure-4 was kept pending, Petitioner while submitting the nomination Form under Annexure-C on 23.04.1995, indicated his Date of Birth as 05.08.1966 so indicated in his Bio-Data under Annexure-A. It is also found that such nomination was made by the Petitioner through the Union. 5.11. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court so cited by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, it is the view of this Court that Date of Birth recorded in the H.S.C Certificate is to be taken as the date of birth for all purposes. 5.12. Therefore, this Court placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions of this Court, is of the view that claim of the Petitioner has been rejected without proper appreciation and such claim of the Petitioner cannot be taken as a belated claim. 5.13. Even if admitting the stand of the Opp. Parties that such claim was raised for the first time in the year 2009, it can also not be taken as a belated Page 37 of 38 // 38 // claim, as Petitioner’s date of retirement falls in the year 2026, which is after 17 years from the date of making the application in the year 2009. 5.14. In any view of the matter, it is the view of this Court that claim of the Petitioner has been illegally rejected and it cannot sustain legal scrutiny. Therefore this Court while quashing the impugned rejection dt.26.12.2022 under Annexure-29, directs Opp. party-Corporation to take effective step to correct the Date of Birth of the Petitioner as 27.04.1972 in his service record and take consequential action in allowing the Petitioner to continue in his services. This Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to carry out the aforesaid direction of this Court with passing of an appropriate order within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order.
Arguments
Birth, claim of Sri Trilochan Pradhan was allowed vide order dt.17/18.11.2021 under Annexure-31. The aforesaid Trilochan Pradhan also made similar prayer for correction of his Date of Birth, taking into the date of birth recorded in his H.S.C pass Certificate so issued by the Board. While on one hand, claim of Sri Trilochan Pradhan was allowed vide order dt.17/18.11.2021 under Annexure-31, but similar claim made by the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dt.26.12.2022 under Annexure-29. 2.16. In support of the stand that date of birth recorded in the HSC Pass Certificate is to be taken as Page 10 of 38 // 11 // the Date of Birth for all purposes, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court passed on 12.04.2024 in W.P.C(OAS) No.50 of 2018. This Court placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows in paragraph-5 & 5.1. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that Petitioner while entered into service as a Peon, he had not passed the HSC examination and in the service Book so opened under Annexure-8, his Date of birth was recorded as 12.07.1948. But as found from the HSC Pass Certificate issued by the Board under Annexure-1 as well as Transfer Certificate issued by the School under Annexure-2, the date of birth of Petitioner is recorded as 12.07.1950. The said date of Birth was also recorded rightly in the Service Book opened in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-4, after he joined as a Diarist-cum-Typist on 15.02.1973. Placing reliance on the decision as cited supra, this Court is of the view that date of birth recorded in the HSC Pass Certificate is to be taken as the Date of birth for all purposes. 5.1.In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the date of Birth recorded as 12.07.1950 in Annexure- 4 should have been taken as the date of birth of the Petitioner and he should have been made to retire on 31.07.2008 in place of 31.07.2006. 2.17. Reliance was also placed to another order passed by this court, on dt.29.01.2025, in W.P.(C ) No.2795 of 2025. This Court in Paragraph-7 of the said order has held as follows: 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Page 11 of 38 // 12 //
Decision
5.15. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 28th November, 2025 /Sangita Page 38 of 38