Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai on Tuesday (January 13) quashed orders that reinstated a retired Anganwadi Sahayika by accepting a claimed later date of birth from her Aadhaar and voter identity cards, and that terminated the incumbent appointed after her retirement. The Court held that Aadhaar and voter ID cards are not conclusive proof of a person’s date of birth, observing that such documents are prepared on self-declared particulars and are meant for identification purposes. The Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and consequential benefits and ordered recovery of salary and other payments made to the former worker after superannuation, with 6% annual interest, within 60 days.

The writ petition was instituted by a woman appointed as an Anganwadi Sahayika pursuant to a duly notified selection process conducted by the Women and Child Development Department of the State. Her appointment followed the superannuation of the earlier incumbent, whose date of birth was recorded in official service records as 05.03.1955 and who stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 05.03.2017. The post having fallen vacant, the petitioner was selected and appointed by order dated 19.06.2018 and continued to discharge her duties.

Also Read: Order XXI Rule 102 CPC: Transferee Pendente Lite Cannot Obstruct Decree Execution; Supreme Court

Nearly two years after retirement, the former Anganwadi Sahayika preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector claiming that her date of birth had been wrongly recorded and asserting a different date of birth based exclusively on entries in her Aadhaar Card and Voter Identity Card. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and directed her reinstatement, resulting in termination of the petitioner’s services through a consequential order.

The petitioner challenged both orders, contending that the appeal was barred by delay, that Aadhaar and Voter ID were not valid proof of date of birth in service matters, and that the appellate decision was rendered without impleading or hearing her. The respondents defended the appellate order on the ground of compliance with the same and the existence of only one sanctioned post.

The Court recorded that “it is an admitted position that Respondent No.5 stood retired on 05/03/2017 on the basis of the date of birth recorded in her official service record” and that the said record “remained unquestioned throughout her tenure.”

It observed that “the law is well settled that an employee who accepts the date of birth recorded in service records and allows it to attain finality cannot be permitted to challenge the same after retirement.”

On delay, the Court noted that “the Appellate Authority completely ignored the doctrine of delay and laches, which is fatal in service jurisprudence” and that reopening settled service matters post-retirement “causes administrative uncertainty and injustice to third parties.”

With respect to reliance on Aadhaar and Voter ID, the Court recorded that “these documents are prepared on the basis of self-declaration and are meant for identification purposes alone” and “cannot be treated as determinative proof of date of birth.” It further observed that “the date of birth mentioned as 01/01/1964 is a commonly used approximate date, adopted when authentic proof is not available.”

The Court also examined surrounding circumstances and noted that “the recorded dates of birth of the son and daughter-in-law clearly negate the possibility” of the claimed year of birth.

On natural justice, the Court stated that “the petitioner was neither impleaded nor afforded an opportunity of hearing” and that deciding the appeal behind her back “strikes at the very root of fair procedure and renders the order void.”

Also Read: Advocates’ Offices In Residential Premises Cannot Be Treated As Commercial Activity; Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Court ordered that “the impugned order dated 01/09/2020 passed by Respondent No.3 and the consequential order dated 21/11/2020 passed by Respondent No.4 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Sahayika, Anganwadi Centre Jamli (Ambapura)” and that “the benefit of continuity of service and all consequential benefits, including notional seniority and monetary benefits, as may be admissible in accordance with law, shall be extended to her.”

“The respondents/appropriate authorities shall recover the entire amount from Respondent No.5 paid towards salary and other monetary benefits after her superannuation i.e. 05/03/2017, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum” and that “the recovered amount shall be deposited with the competent authority/State exchequer within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri Akshay Bhonde, Learned Counsel
For the Respondents (State): Shri Amit Bhatia, Learned Government Advocate
For Respondent No.5: Shri S. P. Pandey, Learned Counsel

Case Title: Pramila v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-IND:1034
Case Number: W.P. No. 19295 of 2020
Bench: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai