### Unilateral alteration of employee's date of birth without notice violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, Jagdish, was appointed as a Mason on January 1, 1979.

His date of birth was initially recorded in the service book as May 15, 1955.

Subsequently, the respondents altered his date of birth to May 15, 1952, based solely on a medical examination conducted under a policy decision to verify the age of laborers lacking documentary proof.

This modification shifted his retirement date from May 31, 2017, to May 31, 2014.

The change was made without issuing a show-cause notice or providing a hearing.

Due to this alteration, the petitioner was retired early on May 31, 2014, and subsequently passed away on August 17, 2014.

His widow/legal representatives pursued the petition seeking back-wages and exgratia payment.

1. Whether the unilateral modification of an employee’s date of birth in service records without notice or an opportunity for hearing is legally sustainable.

2. Whether the legal representatives of a deceased employee are entitled to consequential monetary benefits if the early retirement resulting from such modification is found unlawful.

The court applied the principles of natural justice, specifically that actions involving "civil consequences" require an opportunity to be heard.

It relied on the precedent in State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei (AIR 1967 SC 1269), establishing that administrative orders affecting rights must follow fairness.

Further, it applied Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162], which holds that an employer cannot detrimental-ly alter an employee's date of birth at the "fag end" of their career.

The court found that the original date of birth (1955) was recorded at the time of appointment and was later altered (1952) based purely on a medical report.

The Court observed that despite the State's policy to verify age, the respondents failed to provide any evidence that the petitioner was given a show-cause notice or a hearing before the alteration.

Applying the ratio from W.P. No. 9278/2012, the court reasoned that such a unilateral change violates the principles of natural justice because it negatively impacts an employee's service tenure/civil rights.

Since the petitioner would have remained in service until 2017 but for the unlawful alteration, the court determined that the intervening period between the forced retirement and his death should be treated as active service for monetary purposes.

It held that the alteration was void for lack of procedural fairness.

The court directed the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner’s widow for the period from June 2014 to August 17, 2014 (the date of death) and to consider claims for exgratia payment under the 2014 policy within three months.

If the salary is not paid within the stipulated time, interest at 6% per annum shall apply from the date of entitlement until actual payment.