Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 511 (MP)

Gajadhar Prasad Kushwah v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd.

2025-08-18

ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

body2025
ORDER : With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):- (i) That, the respondents be directed to record correct date of birth of the petitioner in his service roll on the basis of mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, which is the source to get employmentas Office Assistant Grade-III. (ii) That, the order dated 21.3.2014 (Annexure- P/13) passed by the respondents superannuating the petitioner may kindly be quashed, which has been issued based on date of birth recorded in Middle School mark-sheet and be further directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service August, 2019 as per his actual date of birth. (iii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the costs throughout may also be granted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he petitioner entered into the employment initially as Attendant Grade-II (Line) vide order dated January, 1986, wherein the necessary qualification is mentioned as 8th Pass. It is further submitted that in the mark-sheet of Class-VIII the date of birth is recorded as 8.5.1955. Such date of birth subsequently has been corrected and recorded as 6th August, 1959 in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant Grade-III (Trainee) vide order dated 25.10.1989. Such appointment is based on Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination. It is further submitted that post of Assistant Grade-III, essential qualification is prescribed as per Higher Secondary and therefore, on the basis of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, the petitioner entered into the selection process and got appointed after due selection. While appointing as Office Assistant Grade-III, which is based on Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination and the same was placed before the respondents authorities and the petitioner has disclosed his actual date of birth as mentioned in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination i.e. 6th August, 1959. On the basis of the same, the respondents are bound to prepare his service roll. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has applied for Second Option on completion of 18 years of services. Such option was refused to accept by putting the remark ‘anomaly in the date of birth’. On the basis of the same, the respondents are bound to prepare his service roll. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has applied for Second Option on completion of 18 years of services. Such option was refused to accept by putting the remark ‘anomaly in the date of birth’. On completion of 18 years of services, the petitioner has applied for second option but the same was refused and returned by disputing the date of birth. This is the first time when the petitioner knowing the fact with regard to mentioning incorrect date of birth in the service roll. The date of birth of petitioner is mentioned on the basis of Class VIII mark- sheet instead of the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination mark sheet. The date of birth is disclosed as 6th August, 1959, therefore the authority has demanded the original mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination vide letter dated 5.09.2007 (Annexure P/6). The petitioner made efforts and made correspondence and making request for correction in the date of birth with due verification from the Board of Secondary Education. The Board of Secondary Education has written a letter dated 7th October, 2009, verifying the correct date of birth as recorded in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination Mark-sheet as 6th August, 1959 (Annexure P/7) . Thereafter, Deputy General Manager has written a letter on 5th October, 2010 addressing to one Assistant Engineer (O&M), Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. Bhander (Annexure P/8). It is further submitted that such letter has been issued with a specific direction that the Board of Secondary Education verified the date of birth of the petitioner as 6th August, 1959 and therefore, the same be verified for necessary action for approval of higher authorities. Even after receiving such letter (Annexure P/6), the matter is kept pending over, which is unsustainable. Thereafter, Assistant Superintendent Engineer (O&M), Division- II, Shivpuri has written a letter dated 30.10.2009 to the petitioner intimating that the date of birth is verified by the Board of Secondary Education, therefore, for verification of date of birth produce an affidavit and gradation list for the purpose of producing before higher authorities for approval. In pursuance to such correspondence, the petitioner has produced the affidavit alongwith necessary documents on 30th March, 2010 (Annexure P/9) . In pursuance to such correspondence, the petitioner has produced the affidavit alongwith necessary documents on 30th March, 2010 (Annexure P/9) . Letter dated 30.3.2010 was duly forwarded to the higher authorities and again applied for second option, having receiving the same matter was under consideration before the respondents/authorities for removal of such anomaly and made correspondence and thereafter letter dated 26.8.2011 was issued for removal of such anomaly for grant of benefit (Annexure P/10). It is further submitted that the petitioner has again approached to the respondent by submitting the representation for granting the benefit of second option and made request for correction in the service roll (Annexure P/12). It is further submitted that the respondent/authority is satisfied on the basis of the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination and has granted the benefit of second option but at the same time, the respondent/authority has failed to remove anomaly in the service roll. It is further submitted that thereafter, the respondents have acted arbitrarily and issued order dated 21.03.2014 on the basis of date of birth as recorded in the service roll i.e. 8th May, 1955 and going to retire the petitioner on 31st May, 2015. 5. It is further submitted that mentioning incorrect date of birth in the service roll is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide, which causes serious prejudice, which is unsustainable, hence deserves to be corrected on the basis of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, which is the source of entering into the employment, hence, the same be corrected on the basis of date of birth which is mentioned in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination. He relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Limited and others v. Barangi Rabidas (2014) 13 SCC 681 , and State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Premlal Shrivas (2011) 9 SCC 664 . Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief. 6. Per-contra learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that this writ petition is highly misconceived, hence, deserves to be dismissed with a heavy cost. So many facts are suppressed by the petitioner deliberately and he has not come with clean hands before this Court claiming the relief in the present writ petition. The petitioner was initially appointed as Attendant Grade-II (Line) vide order dated 2.1.1986 as per his academic qualification which was 8th Class. So many facts are suppressed by the petitioner deliberately and he has not come with clean hands before this Court claiming the relief in the present writ petition. The petitioner was initially appointed as Attendant Grade-II (Line) vide order dated 2.1.1986 as per his academic qualification which was 8th Class. From the bare perusal of said initial appointment, it is evident that for the post of Attendant Grade-II (Line) requisite qualification was passing of Class 8th examination at the time of entering into service. Petitioner himself fulfilled his employment particulars with the department and he himself recorded his date of birth as 8.5.1955 on the basis of 8th Class mark sheet. He himself filled up all necessary information with the department including form of nomination. It is further submitted by the Government Advocate that now just to get benefit of second option he cannot take U-turn to correct his date of birth after so many years. The petitioner has fulfilled all such information including his date of birth 8.5.1955 with an open eyes on the basis of 8th class mark sheet, now there is no occasion to change or correct date of birth in the petitioner's service roll. The petitioner has approached before this Court in the year 2014 while he entered into service in the year 1986. After so many decades, he has no authority in law to claim the relief to correct the record, date of birth on the basis of higher secondary mark sheet. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself is aware about the correct date of birth, he himself fulfilled all necessary information including his date of birth 8.5.1955 in the service record and employment particulars, which is evidence from the record. Then now at the fag end of his retirement, the petitioner cannot take U-turn because he himself recorded date of birth in his service roll with an open eyes. It is further submitted that present petition also suffers from delay and latches because petitioner has entered into service in the year 1986 and also sent for training for higher post in the year, 1989 but since then he keep mum and now filed present petition in the year 2014 after so many decades. It is further submitted that present petition also suffers from delay and latches because petitioner has entered into service in the year 1986 and also sent for training for higher post in the year, 1989 but since then he keep mum and now filed present petition in the year 2014 after so many decades. It is further submitted that since in the year 2015 he was to be retired because the information in this regard has been served upon him by passing an order dated 31.3.2014, therefore, he has approached before this Court with a relief to change his date of birth as per Higher Secondary School Certificate. It is further submitted that various disputed questions of facts are involved in the present petition, which cannot be adjudicated because this Court cannot conduct an enquiry to verify the correct date of birth. It is further submitted that petitioner should have filed civil suit for declaration in this regard and since after so may decades, he has come before this Court to claim a relief to change/correct date of birth, therefore, he has filed present petition, instead of filing civil suit for declaration due to such alternate remedy of filing civil suit, present petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that as per Finance Rule 84, the date of birth entered in the service record constitutes conclusive proof of an employee’s date of birth. The petitioner was entered in service and his date of birth has been recorded 1955, therefore, in view of the Finance Rule 84 same cannot be corrected. In this regard, he relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited and another v. M.C. Subramaniam Reddy (2021) 12 SCC 27 . 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The petitioner himself has fulfilled his employment particulars with the department and he himself recorded the date of birth 8.5.1955 on the basis of 8th Class mark sheet. He himself filled up all necessary information with the department including form of nomination. 9. The petitioner approached this Court in the year 2014 while he had entered into service 1986 and after so many decades he has no authority in law to claim the relief to correct and record the date of birth on the basis of Higher Secondary Mark sheet. 10. 9. The petitioner approached this Court in the year 2014 while he had entered into service 1986 and after so many decades he has no authority in law to claim the relief to correct and record the date of birth on the basis of Higher Secondary Mark sheet. 10. 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 relevant paras 10 to 12 in the case of M.C. Subramaniam Reddy (supra) reads as under: “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) ‘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 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] ). 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 summarised as under: (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 laches 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. The Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code reads as under: “Every person newly appointed to a service or a post under government should at the time of the appointment declare the date of his birth by the Chirstian Era with as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence such as a matriculation certificate, Municipal Birth Certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known, an approximate date may be given. If the exact date is not known, an approximate date may be given. The actual date or the assume date determined under rule 85 should be recorded in the History of service, Service Book or any other record that may be kept in the respect of government servant’s service under Government. The date of birth, once record in this manner, must be deemed to the absolutely conclusive, and except in the case of a clerical error no revision of such a decalaration shall be allowed to be made at a later period for any purpose whatever.” 13. From bare perusal of aforesaid Rule-84 it reveals that date of birth entered in the service record is conclusive proof of an employee with respect to his/her date of birth. Admittedly the petitioner was entered in service and his date of birth has been record as 8.5.1955, therefore, in view of the Rule-84 of the M.P. Financial Code same cannot be corrected. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme 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 respondent's Advocate 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 nearly 30 years of service. 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 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 L.J 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, 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 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. 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." 15. The Hon'ble Supreme 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, para 8): "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. 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 [Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375]).” 16. The Supreme Court in the case of Factory Manager 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. 17. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Premlal Shrivas reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 has held as under:- “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. 14. It is manifest from a bare reading of Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding on the government servant. 14. It is manifest from a bare reading of Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding on the government servant. It is clear that the said Rule has been made in order to limit the scope of correction of date of birth in the service record. However, an exception has been carved out in the Rule, permitting the public servant to request later for correcting his age provided that incorrect recording of age is on account of a clerical error or mistake. This is a salutary rule, which was, perhaps, inserted with a view to safeguard the interest of employees so that they do not suffer because of the mistakes committed by the official staff. Obviously, only that clerical error or mistake would fall within the ambit of the said Rule which is caused due to the negligence or want of proper care on the part of some person other than the employee seeking correction. Onus is on the employee concerned to prove such negligence.” 18. 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 respondents were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book. 19. There is also no substance in the plea of the petitioner 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 respondents were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book. 19. In view of the aforesaid, since the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly, his claim with regard to change of her date of birth cannot be entertained at this stage, therefore, this Court does not find any ground to make interference in the impugned order. The petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. No costs. C.C. as per rules.