Anganwadi Worker’s Retirement Challenge Fails At MP HC After No Earlier Effort To Correct Her Date Of Birth

The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker on 31 October 1987.

After her services had previously been terminated, she appealed to the Collector; while that appeal was pending, the Additional Collector permitted her to continue working under an interim order dated 7 November 2025.

On 23 February 2026, the Project Officer directed her to superannuate with effect from 28 February 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order, alleging that it was made without notice and while her appeal remained pending.

She also asserted that her correct date of birth was 20 July 1969, as shown in her Primary School Certificate, rather than 12 February 1964, which was recorded on the MIS Portal.

The State opposed the petition, relying on the petitioner’s delay in seeking correction of her date of birth.

The Court applied the principles governing correction of a public servant’s date of birth, relying on State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477; Home Department v. R. Kerubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155; Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162; Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja, 2021 INSC 521; Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Ram Samugh Yadav, (2020) 3 SCC 421; and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411.

Those authorities establish that a request to alter a recorded date of birth must comply with applicable rules, is not a matter of right even where evidence is produced, and may be rejected for delay—particularly when made at the fag end of service.

Courts must also consider the potential prejudice to other employees awaiting promotion; the claimant bears the burden of establishing that the recorded date is wrong.

The petitioner relied on her school certificate to contend that the MIS Portal contained an incorrect date of birth, and argued that the superannuation order was abrupt and premature.

The Court, however, treated the claim as a delayed request for correction of the service record. It found that the petitioner had made no effort to secure correction at the initial stage of her service and held that she should have raised the matter earlier.

Applying the authorities on delay and correction of dates of birth, the Court declined to grant relief.

The order directing superannuation with effect from 28 February 2026 was therefore not disturbed.