Gulab Rao vs Mine Superintendent /Manager

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:69028
1 WP-10235-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
th
ON THE 8 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10235 of 2018
GULAB RAO
Versus
MINE SUPERINTENDENT /MANAGER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Prateek Agrawal - Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Anoop Nair - Senior Advocate with Ms. Ani Agrawal - Advocate
for respondents.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) This, Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set-aside
the impugned order dated 10.6.16 sl.no.6 so far it relate to the
petitioner Annexure P/6, in the interest of justice.
ii) To command the respondents to extend the service of the
petitioner till completion of age of his superannuation i.e. 2020
considering his actual dated of birth 10.5.60 as per school record
and accordingly and CO pay him entire services benefit with all
consequential effect in the interest of justice.
iii) To grant such further reliefs which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/9/2026
11:32:22 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:69028
2 WP-10235-2018
case."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a
Fitter/Helper in the establishment of the respondents on 01.09.1975. At the
time of his appointment, his date of birth was recorded in the service record
as 01.07.1956. The petitioner, however, claims that his actual date of birth is
10.05.1960, as reflected in his primary school records and life insurance
policy. Vide letter dated 27.01.2016, the respondents informed the petitioner
that, on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his service record, he would
attain the age of superannuation and be retired with effect from 30.06.2016.
The petitioner immediately submitted a representation, relying upon his
school records and other documents, seeking correction of his date of birth
and continuation in service up to the year 2020. His representation was
rejected vide order dated 12.02.2016. Thereafter, the respondents issued the
impugned order dated 10.06.2016, retiring the petitioner from service with
effect from 01.07.2016 by treating 01.07.1956 as his date of birth. The
petitioner subsequently submitted another representation dated 27.09.2016,
reiterating his claim for correction of his date of birth. Aggrieved by the
rejection of his claim and the consequential retirement, the petitioner has
approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned retirement order
and a direction for continuation of his service up to the year 2020 by treating
his date of birth as 10.05.1960, along with consequential service benefits.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, when the
petitioner was served with the notice of superannuation, he came to know
that his date of birth had been wrongly entered in the service record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/9/2026
11:32:22 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:69028
3 WP-10235-2018
Therefore, he preferred a representation, which was rejected vide the

impugned order dated 12.02.2016 (Annexure-P/7). It is further submitted that
the petitioner had produced his Transfer Certificate (TC) and the admission
register to substantiate his date of birth; however, the same were rejected by
the respondents in a hyper-technical manner.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that upon
perusal of the entire service record, particularly the documents forming part
of Annexures R/1 to R/5 and duly countersigned by the petitioner, it is
evident that the petitioner was well aware of the date of birth recorded in his
service record. It is further submitted that the petitioner never raised any
objection to the said entry during his entire service and sought correction
thereof only upon being served with the notice of superannuation. It is also
submitted that correction of the date of birth at the fag end of service is
impermissible in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in G.M. Bharat Cocking Coal Ltd., West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar
Dushad and Others, (2000)8 SCCC 696, Eastern Coalfields Limited and
Others Vs. Pranab Kumar Layek, 2023 SCC Online SC 2131, Employer in
relation to Management of Katras Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
Dhanbad Vs. Workman-Shahdeo Das in Civil Appeal No.2776 of 2025,
General Manager, Barsua Iron Ore Mines Vs. Vice President United Mines
Mazdoor Union and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 491 and Bharat Coking
Coal Limited and Others Vs, Shyam Kishore Singh (2020)3 SCC 411.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6 . From perusal of the record, this Court finds that the controversy
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/9/2026
11:32:22 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:69028
4 WP-10235-2018
essentially relates to the petitioner’s claim for correction of his date of birth

at the fag end of his service. The law with regard to alteration of date of birth
in the service record is well settled. An employee cannot claim correction of
his date of birth as a matter of right at the fag end of service, particularly
when the date recorded in the service record has remained unquestioned for a
substantial period of service. Such belated claims are required to be
considered with great circumspection, keeping in view the finality attached
to service records and the need to avoid uncertainty in the matter of
retirement.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (Supra) in
paragraph nos.10 and 13 has held 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. vs. Premlal Shrivas , (2011) 9 SCC
664 it is held as hereunder;
“8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters
involving correction of date of birth of a government
servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or
at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has
to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing
direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the
service book at the time of entry into any government
service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/9/2026
11:32:22 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:69028
5 WP-10235-2018
on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date

of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance
with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent
procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the
case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the
person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be
loath to issue a direction for correction of the service
book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view
that if a government servant makes a request for
correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a
long time of his induction into the service, particularly
beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim,
as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth,
even if he has good evidence to establish that the
recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or
the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over
their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam
Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/9/2026
11:32:22 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:69028
6 WP-10235-2018
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.
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 04.03.1950 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
had made the representation. Further the respondent did not avail
the judicial remedy immediately thereafter, before retirement.
Instead, the respondent retired from service on 31.03.2010 and
even thereafter the writ petition was filed only in the year 2014,
after four years from the date of his retirement. In that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/9/2026
11:32:22 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:69028
7 WP-10235-2018
circumstance, the indulgence shown to the respondent by the High

Court was not justified."
8 . Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid settled principles, the
claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner entered
Government service on 01.09.1975 and continued in service for more than
four decades. Throughout this prolonged period of service, his date of birth
remained consistently recorded in the service records as 01.07.1956, and
admittedly, the petitioner never raised any objection or sought correction of
the said entry during the substantial tenure of his service. It is only at the fag
end of his service, after he was informed of his impending date of
superannuation, that the petitioner sought to question the date of birth
recorded in the service records. Such a belated claim, raised after the
petitioner had remained fully aware of the entry for several decades, cannot
be permitted to unsettle the settled service record or confer upon him an
extended tenure of service.
9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner came to know of the incorrect entry only upon receipt of the notice
of superannuation also does not inspire confidence. As pointed out by
learned counsel for the respondents, the service record contains documents
forming part of Annexures R/1 to R/5 which were duly countersigned by the
petitioner and consistently reflected his date of birth as 01.07.1956. In these
circumstances, the petitioner cannot, after having remained in service for
several decades without raising any objection, seek alteration of the date of
birth at the stage when such alteration would have the effect of extending his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/9/2026
11:32:22 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:69028
8 WP-10235-2018
service by several years.

10. The documents relied upon by the petitioner, including the
Transfer Certificate and admission register, may constitute material relied
upon by him in support of his claim; however, the existence of such
documents, by itself, cannot overcome the enormous delay in raising the
claim. The question before this Court is not merely whether the petitioner has
produced a document reflecting a different date of birth, but whether such a
claim, after decades of accepted service record and at the fag end of service,
can be legally entertained. In view of the settled position of law, the answer
must necessarily be in the negative.
11. It is also significant that the petitioner had already served for a
substantial period on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his service
record. Permitting alteration at this stage would unsettle a matter which had
remained concluded for decades and would have the direct consequence of
prolonging the petitioner’s tenure of service. The extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be
exercised to facilitate such a belated claim, particularly when no satisfactory
explanation is forthcoming for the petitioner’s failure to seek correction at
the appropriate stage.
12. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision of the
respondents declining to alter the petitioner’s date of birth on the basis of the
documents produced by him. The order dated 12.02.2016 does not suffer
from any jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of law warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/9/2026
11:32:22 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:69028
9 WP-10235-2018
consequential order dated 10.06.2016 retiring the petitioner with effect from

01.07.2016 on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his service record
also does not call for interference.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds no merit in the present
writ petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned orders
dated 12.02.2016 and 10.06.2016 are hereby upheld.
14. With the aforesaid, petition stands dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
julie

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/9/2026
11:32:22 AM