Date-of-birth correction remains permissible near retirement where the employee consistently pursued rectification and records substantiate the claim.

The petitioner, an employee of South Eastern Coalfields Limited, challenged the notice dated 1 June 2022 stating that, on the basis of his recorded date of birth as 8 November 1962, he would superannuate on 30 November 2022.

He claimed that his correct date of birth was 20 November 1966 and relied on his educational certificates, Dakhil-Kharij Register, Form-B, PS-3, PS-4 and Coal Mines Provident Fund records, several of which recorded that date.

The respondents relied on another Form-B, the service record, and promotion-related documents recording his date of birth as 8 November 1962, and argued that the claim was belated, involved disputed questions of fact, and was inconsistent with his alleged acceptance of the earlier date.

The petitioner had objected to the date-of-birth entry in 1987 and made further representations in 2006, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for correction of his date of birth was liable to be rejected as a belated claim raised at the fag end of his service.

Whether the petitioner’s date of birth was 20 November 1966 rather than 8 November 1962, on the basis of the contemporaneous service, educational and departmental records.

Whether the disputed records and alleged acceptance of the date of birth in promotion documents precluded relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Implementation Instruction No. 76 under the National Coal Wage Agreement, which provides that pre-employment Matriculation, Higher Secondary or recognised Middle School certificates are to be treated as conclusive proof of date of birth; where such records are unavailable or conflicting, the employer must consider the relevant Form-B, CMPF and identity records and, where necessary, refer the matter to an Age Determination Committee or Medical Board.

The Court relied on M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw, 2014 AIR SCW 2634, holding that an employee’s claim cannot be rejected merely because he signed an erroneous Form-B, particularly where the employer failed to follow Instruction No. 76 and the employee had pursued correction through departmental mechanisms.

It also relied on Manoj Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 11 SCC 702, recognising the matriculation certificate as strong evidence of date of birth, and on Parmarth, Jai Prakash Singh, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Thakur and Kanhaiyalal Yadav concerning reliable contemporaneous records and correction of date of birth.

Although the general rule is that courts should not entertain such claims at the fag end of service, that restriction does not apply where the employee had raised the objection at an earlier stage and the employer failed to decide it.

The Court found that the petitioner had not acquiesced in the disputed date of birth because he had objected to the entry as early as 1987 and repeatedly pursued correction thereafter.

Accordingly, the respondents could not characterise the writ petition, filed shortly before the proposed retirement date, as a fresh or belated claim.

On the merits, the Court noted that the petitioner’s educational and departmental records consistently recorded 20 November 1966, while the respondents’ own service record contained the words “Twenty Nov. Sixty Six,” with the relevant portion apparently rubbed out, despite the date being recorded in figures as 8 November 1962.

Applying Instruction No. 76 and the principles in Bharat Coking Coal, the Court held that the contemporaneous and corroborated records supporting 20 November 1966 outweighed the disputed Form-B entry and promotion documents.

The alleged acknowledgment of 8 November 1962 in promotion records did not create estoppel against the statutory or departmental procedure for correcting an erroneous date of birth.

The objection that the petitioner would have been below eighteen when appointed was rejected because the legality of his appointment was not in issue, and the respondents had not disputed evidence of similarly placed employees.

The retirement notice dated 1 June 2022, fixing his superannuation on 30 November 2022 on the basis of the date of birth as 8 November 1962, was set aside.

The respondents were directed to correct the petitioner’s date of birth in the service records from 8 November 1962 to 20 November 1966 and to grant consequential benefits.

The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.