Employer cannot unilaterally change employee’s recorded date of birth to their detriment at the fag end of service.

The applicants are the legal heirs of Late Ramesh Chandra Batham, who was appointed as a casual labourer in 1982.

His date of birth (DOB) was recorded in his service book, identity card, PAN, and Aadhaar as 20.12.1959.

However, in 2018, during pension processing, the respondents alleged his DOB was 06.02.1957 based on a 1982 medical certificate and initial casual labour records.

Consequently, the respondents issued an order on 22.12.2018 retroactively retiring him effective 28.02.2017.

They further ordered the recovery of Rs. 9,72,868/- from his leave salary and gratuity, representing the salary paid between his "actual" retirement date and the date of the order.

The employee has since deceased, and his heirs challenged the retroactive retirement and subsequent financial recoveries.

1. Whether the employer can unilaterally alter the date of birth of an employee to his detriment at the fag end of his service.

2. Whether the recovery of salary paid for the period the employee actually worked is legally sustainable.

The Tribunal applied the principle of estoppel against the employer, noting that the same restrictions preventing an employee from changing their DOB at the end of their career apply to the employer.

It relied on Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. & Ors (2022), which deprecates the practice of employers altering service records at the conclusion of a career to curtail benefits.

Furthermore, it applied the principles from State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) regarding the prohibition of recoveries from retired employees or their heirs when the payment was not due to any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ claim of a "mistake" in the service book was a weak and unjustified explanation, given that the 1959 DOB was consistently used in identity cards and pay slips for decades.

The court reasoned that as the custodian of records, the respondents acted on the 1959 date for the entirety of the employee's tenure and cannot "fall back" on different records at the final stage to curtail service benefits.

It was noted that the employee had no reason to seek correction earlier because the official records were already in his favor.

Since the employee actually performed his duties during the disputed period (March 2017 to December 2018), the recovery of salary paid for work done was deemed illegal and inequitable.

It held that the deceased employee must be treated as retired based on his service book DOB of 20.12.1959.

The respondents were directed to release all consequential benefits, including revised family pension and arrears, to Applicant No. 1.

Additionally, the respondents were ordered to refund the entire recovered amount with interest at the GPF rate within three months.