Smt. Suryakali Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88826
1 WP-44765-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 44765 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010795452026
SMT. SURYAKALI PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.S. Choudhary - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
By way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 23.02.2026
passed by the respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner has been directed to
be superannuated with effect from 28.02.2026.
2. The facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner was appointed as an
Anganwadi Worker on 31.10.1987. The services of the petitioner were
previously terminated by the respondent No. 4 - Project Officer, Child
Development Project Chitrangi-1, District Singrauli against which she
preferred an appeal before the Collector, Singrauli. During the pendency of
the said appeal, the Additional Collector passed an interim order on
07.11.2025, permitting the petitioner to continue discharging her duties at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 04-11-2026
17:02:05

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88826
2 WP-44765-2026
Anganwadi Centre Bargawan. While the petitioner was working under this

interim protection, Respondent No. 4 abruptly passed the impugned order
dated 23.02.2026, forcing her to retire on 28.02.2026 without any prior
notice. The petitioner subsequently submitted a representation before the
Collector, Singrauli, regarding this premature superannuation, but no action
has been taken. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of
superannuation dated 23.02.2026 is illegal, arbitrary and violates the
principles of natural justice. The order was passed abruptly without issuing
any prior show-cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. The impugned order suffers from malafides on the part of
Respondent No. 4. It is further submitted that the actions against the
petitioner were initiated because she refused to fulfill an illegal demand
made by the said officer. Furthermore, Respondent No. 4 overreached by
passing this superannuation order while the petitioner's appeal against a
previous termination order was still pending before the Collector, under
which she had been granted interim protection to continue her duties. It is
also submitted that the respondents have erred in determining the age of
retirement. As per her Primary School Certificate, her correct date of birth is
20.07.1969. Based on this correct date of birth, her age of superannuation
would only be reached in the year 2031, making the current retirement order
premature by five years. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted all
necessary documents regarding her date of birth at the time of her initial
appointment and the burden of properly maintaining these official documents
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 04-11-2026
17:02:05

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88826
3 WP-44765-2026
rested entirely with the respondents. It is further submitted that the

respondents arbitrarily relied upon an incorrect date of birth i.e. 12.02.1964
mentioned in the MIS Portal without ever seeking information or
clarification from the petitioner to rectify this portal error. Thus, it is prayed
that the impugned order may be quashed and respondents may be directed to
correct the date of birth of the petitioner in her service record.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the
prayer and submitted that according to settled legal position, the prayer for
change of date of birth at the fag end of service is impermissible. In such
circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. In support of his contention, the counsel for the respondents/State has
placed reliance in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Pitamber Dutt Semwal
reported in (2005) 11 SCC 477, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
under:-
".....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.
"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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 04-11-2026
17:02:05

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88826
4 WP-44765-2026
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."
8. .......................................................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 sleepover
their rights" (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh
[(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24
ATC 92] )."

6. The counsel for the respondents/State has also placed reliance in the
case of Home Department Vs. R. Kerubakaran reported in 1994 Supp (1)
SCC 155 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
"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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 04-11-2026
17:02:05

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88826
5 WP-44765-2026
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 may officers
who are below him in seniority waiting their
promotion, may lose the promotion forever ......"

7. In the case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh reported in (1993) 2
SCC 162 the Hon'ble Apex Court 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."
8. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Rural
Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja and others reported in
2021 INSC 521, after considering all the aforesaid judgments has held as
under :-
"22. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court
the law on change of date of birth can be summarized
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 04-11-2026
17:02:05

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88826
6 WP-44765-2026
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.
23. 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Limited and
others Vs. Ram Samugh Yadav and others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 421, has
held that the prayer for change in the date of birth at the fag end of service
career is impermissible. In the present case as well, the petitioner has
approached this Court at the fag end of his service career.
10. Learned counsel for respondents has also placed reliance on the
Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and
Others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411, in which it is held that
the writ petition filed by the respondents after his retirement seeking
correction in the date of birth cannot be entertained.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. Admittedly, no efforts were made by the petitioner to get her date of
birth corrected at the initial stage of service. The petitioner ought to have
approached this Court seeking correction of date of birth at the initial stage
of service rather than approaching at the fag end of her service career.
13. In view of the aforesaid pronunciations of the Apex Court in the cases
of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. (supra), Eastern Coalfields Ltd. And
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 04-11-2026
17:02:05

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88826
7 WP-44765-2026
Others (supra), Union of India vs. Harnam Singh (supra), Home Department

vs. R. Kerubakaran (supra), State of Uttaranchal (supra) and Karnataka Rural
Development Infrastructure Development Ltd. (supra), no indulgence can be
shown to the petitioner.
14. Accordingly, this Court does not find any substance or merit in the
claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
15. No order as to costs.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
AL

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 04-11-2026
17:02:05