A duly verified educational certificate requires date-of-birth determination despite a belated correction claim.

The petitioner, an employee of Western Coal Fields Ltd., was appointed as a General Mazdoor on 10 November 1980 and was due to retire on 30 November 2017.

The respondents issued a superannuation notice dated 26 December 2016, treating his date of birth as 8 November 1957.

The service records contained inconsistent dates of birth, including 8 November 1957 and 1 July 1958, whereas the petitioner’s Higher Secondary Examination Certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board recorded his date of birth as 1 April 1961.

The petitioner claimed that the Higher Secondary Certificate had been submitted when he was promoted from General Mazdoor to Clerk.

On his representation dated 16 March 2017, the respondents sought verification from the Bihar School Examination Board. The Board verified the certificate by letter dated 22 June 2017.

The respondents thereafter issued show-cause notices concerning the late production of the certificate and the delay in seeking correction of the date of birth.

The respondents opposed the petition on the grounds that the certificate had not been produced at the time of appointment, the petitioner had not challenged the date of birth during approximately 36 years of service, and the dispute had been raised only shortly before retirement.

They also contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Whether the petitioner’s date of birth was required to be reconsidered on the basis of his duly verified Higher Secondary Certificate under Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-III?

Whether the superannuation notice dated 26 December 2016, directing retirement with effect from 30 November 2017, could be sustained without a proper determination of the petitioner’s date of birth?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to monetary benefits for the period of service that would have remained until retirement if the date of birth recorded in the Higher Secondary Certificate were accepted?

The Court applied Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-III, particularly Clause (B)(i)(a), under which, for existing employees, the date of birth recorded in a Matriculation or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by a recognized Board or University before employment is to be treated as correct; the Instruction was held binding on the parties.

The Court also relied on Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. & Others, (2022) 6 SCC 211, which held that where the employer’s records contain inconsistent dates of birth, the employer must undertake a reasoned determination after giving the employee an opportunity of hearing, and that the employer cannot itself rely on an alternative record at the fag end of service to the employee’s disadvantage.

Further, relying on Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411, the Court held that where both employer and employee failed to raise the issue when the educational certificate was produced, correction may be granted but monetary benefits for the remaining period of service may be denied.

The Court found that the petitioner’s Higher Secondary Certificate had been duly verified by the issuing Board and that the respondents had not alleged or established that it was forged or otherwise inauthentic.

Since the service records themselves contained inconsistent dates of birth, the respondents were required to conduct a proper determination under Implementation Instruction No. 76 rather than rely conclusively on one disputed entry.

The Court rejected delay as an absolute bar because the petitioner raised the issue upon learning of the incorrect entry, and the respondents themselves had undertaken verification and initiated an inquiry through show-cause notices.

Applying Shankar Lal, the Court held that the retirement decision could not stand without a reasoned determination consistent with the governing wage agreement and principles of natural justice.

However, applying Bharat Coking Coal, the Court limited the financial consequences, observing that both parties were at fault for not resolving the date-of-birth discrepancy when the certificate was allegedly submitted at the time of promotion.

The Court quashed the superannuation notice dated 26 December 2016 directing the petitioner’s retirement from 30 November 2017.

The respondents were directed to reconsider and determine the petitioner’s date of birth on the basis of the duly verified Higher Secondary Certificate and other relevant service records, strictly in accordance with Implementation Instruction No. 76, and to pass a reasoned order.

If the petitioner was found entitled to correction, consequential retiral benefits were to be extended in accordance with law; however, he was held not entitled to monetary benefits for the remaining period of service up to retirement.