Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar have dismissed two appeals challenging the refusal of correction of dates of birth recorded in the service records of employees. The Court held that the correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right, even if there is supporting documentary evidence, when such claims are raised after a delay of more than two decades. The Bench concluded that both appeals were devoid of merit and affirmed the orders of the learned Single Judges refusing to interfere with the decisions of the employer.

The first appeal concerned an employee who was appointed on 2 December 1986 as a Temporary Underground Loader under the respondent company. At the time of appointment, he claimed to have submitted his Matriculation Certificate issued in 1982 by Khalsa High School, Dhanbad, which recorded his date of birth as 5 October 1965. However, in the statutory Form-B prepared at the time of his appointment, his age was noted as 24 years as on 7 May 1986, based on a medical report.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Order XXI Rule 102 CPC Bar Not Applicable Where Suit Property Purchased From Third Party and Not Judgment-Debtor

The employee alleged that his date of birth was not properly recorded in the service excerpt prepared at the time of appointment. He filed a representation on 20 March 2007, seeking correction of his date of birth to align with his Matriculation Certificate. The certificate was verified by the school and confirmed to be genuine. Despite this, the authorities did not correct the service record, and he was retired on 31 May 2022 based on the date of birth as determined in Form-B. A writ petition was filed in 2018, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 9 September 2024, leading to the present appeal.

In the second appeal, another employee was appointed on 13 July 1990 as a Miner Loader. He claimed to have furnished his Matriculation Certificate, which recorded his date of birth as 7 June 1966. In the service record prepared later, his age was incorrectly noted as 26 years as on 27 June 1990. According to the appellant, the details in the service records were written in English by someone else after he had submitted the forms in Hindi. His date of birth was thus recorded incorrectly as 27 June 1964. He submitted repeated representations for correction of his date of birth to match his Matriculation Certificate. Ultimately, his request was rejected by the General Manager (P&IR), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through a letter dated 14/15 October 2020. He filed a writ petition in 2021, which was dismissed on 11 June 2024, prompting the appeal.

In both cases, the appellants contended that their Matriculation Certificates, issued prior to their employment, should have been treated as authentic proof of their dates of birth. They relied on Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III, which prescribes that the date of birth of matriculate appointees should be determined based on their Matriculation Certificates. The appellants also referred to Clause 37 of the Certified Standing Orders, which obligates the employer to consider educational certificates when recording date of birth. They further relied on the Supreme Court decision in Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw, 2014 (12) SCC 570.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that neither of the appellants submitted their Matriculation Certificates at the time of their appointments. Their ages were therefore assessed by a Medical Board and recorded accordingly in the service records. The respondents contended that both employees participated in the medical age assessment process without objection and signed their service records. Objections to their dates of birth were raised only after two decades of service, near the end of their careers. The respondents relied on Supreme Court decisions including G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shib Kumar Dushad (2000) 8 SCC 696 and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC 411, which held that belated claims for correction of date of birth cannot be entertained.

The Division Bench recorded that both appellants claimed to have passed their Matriculation Examination before entering service and alleged that they had submitted their certificates at the time of appointment. The respondents, however, disputed this and maintained that the certificates were not submitted at the relevant time, leading to medical determination of age. The Court observed that “both the parties have raised the disputed question of fact.” It further stated that “it is a trite law that the High Court should not intervene in the disputed question of fact under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions.”

The Bench noted that the first appellant signed his Form-B, which recorded his age as 24 years as on 7 May 1986, without raising objection for 21 years. Similarly, the second appellant signed multiple service records, including Form-B and ID card register, which recorded his age as 26 years as on 27 June 1990. He did not challenge these entries until 2013, after 23 years of service. The Court recorded that “these facts sufficiently suggest that the appellants were knowing as to what dates of birth were recorded in their service records, however, they waited for more than two decades in raising objection to the said entries.”

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shyam Kishore Singh, which held: “even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right… If a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence.” The Bench stated that the appellants had failed to explain the delay of over two decades in raising their claims.

The Court further observed that the reliance on Chhota Birsa Uranw was misplaced. It recorded that in that case, the employee had availed the opportunity provided during implementation of NCWA-III in 1987 to seek correction of service records, but the correction was not carried out despite his efforts. The Court distinguished that precedent by stating that “the appellants did not seek correction of their dates of birth immediately after implementation of NCWA-III, rather they made unreasonable delay in raising claim for correction.”

Also Read: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Conviction for Rioting and Hurt | Says First-Time Offenders May Be Released on Probation to Prevent Jail Stigma in Minor Offences

The Bench also cited Shib Kumar Dushad, noting that “in a case where the controversy over the date of birth of an employee has been raised long after joining the service and the matter has been determined by following the procedure prescribed under the service rules or general instructions issued by the employer… the High Court… should not interfere with the decision of the employer.” It observed that the dates of birth in the present cases were determined in accordance with Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III and no manipulation was evident.

The Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the orders of the Single Judges dismissing the writ petitions. It stated: “For the reasons as aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 11.06.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2365 of 2021 as well as the order dated 09.09.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 644 of 2018 so as to warrant any interference of this Court.” The Bench further held: “The present appeals being devoid of merit are, accordingly, dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate; Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. A. K. Mehta, Advocate; Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate

Case Title: Uma Ram v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors.; Shiv Kumar Paswan v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:24867-DB

Case Numbers: L.P.A. No. 81 of 2025; L.P.A. No. 523 of 2024

Bench: Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan; Justice Rajesh Shankar