“Relief Would Have Followed as a Matter of Course”: Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses FCI Appeal, Upholds Employee’s Right to Correct Birth Date in Service Records—“No Palpable Infirmity Found”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and upheld the order passed by the Single Bench concerning the correction of date of birth in service records. The court, while upholding the correctness of the learned Single Judge’s order, directed the respondents to extend service benefits accordingly and held that no palpable infirmities were found in the impugned decision.
The appeal was filed against the order dated 03.01.2025 passed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The core issue revolved around the correction of the recorded date of birth of the writ petitioner/respondent, an Assistant Labour at FCI, whose date of birth was incorrectly entered as 10.12.1962 instead of the actual date 10.12.1966.
The writ petitioner/respondent, working as Assistant Labour at the Durg Depot of the Food Corporation of India, sought correction of his date of birth in the official service record. He contended that while his actual date of birth is 10.12.1966, the service records erroneously mentioned it as 10.12.1962. Supporting documents such as his school records, Aadhar Card, PAN Card, and birth certificate were produced to establish the correct date of birth.
Despite initiating the correction process multiple times, beginning with an application dated 15.07.2009 and subsequent representations on 10.02.2012, 15.07.2012, 15.01.2013, and 18.10.2021, the Department did not rectify the error in his service records. Consequently, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (S) No. 1862/2022, seeking relief from the High Court.
The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, noting that the correct date of birth as per the Matriculation Mark-sheet was 10.12.1966 and directed the Department to grant service benefits accordingly. However, the writ petitioner limited his claim regarding salary and back wages to a period of two years only.
Challenging the Single Judge's order, the appellants argued that:
- The writ petitioner did not approach the authorities for correction of date of birth within the statutory time frame.
- As a qualified employee, the petitioner was presumed to be aware of the correct procedure and should have acted within three months as stipulated.
- The delay in seeking the correction could not be condoned without examining the potential inconvenience to the Department or any prejudice caused to third parties.
The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that:
- Repeated applications were filed since 2009, demonstrating ongoing efforts to rectify the error.
- The date of birth mentioned in multiple official documents supported the claim.
- The petitioner sought enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench examined the arguments and held that the Single Judge had rightly considered the facts, documents, and precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 993.
Quoting from the Supreme Court decision, the Bench recorded:
"Relief could also be denied if by reason of the delay, the official respondents are hopelessly inconvenienced in defending their action for lack of the relevant records and to establish their defence to the full satisfaction of the court."
Further, it was observed:
"In the present case, neither is there accrual of any parallel right of a third party nor could grant of relief cause confusion and public inconvenience. There has also been no occasion for the State authorities to claim that they are in any manner handicapped to defend their action."
Addressing the issue of delay, the court recorded:
"Notwithstanding delay, which might not have been explained to the full satisfaction of a high court, we hold that in cases where a high court finds that facts, as they have been presented, are not seriously disputed, no further investigation into facts is required to be made, the relief claimed in the petition was otherwise due to the writ petitioner and the same would have followed as a matter of course..."
The Bench concluded that the delay in filing the petition was duly explained and did not adversely affect the Department. It further noted that similarly situated individuals were granted corrections in their service records, and the petitioner's case deserved similar treatment.
The Division Bench stated:
"The date of birth mentioned in the service record of the writ petitioner/respondent was required to be corrected as the correct date of birth was 10.12.1966, which was clearly indicated in the mark-sheet of matriculation issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal."
Regarding service benefits, the court ordered:
"The respondent authorities were directed to give him the service benefits as ordered by the learned Single Judge and the period of two years as conceded by the writ petitioner/respondent would be limited only in respect of salary and back wages of the writ petitioner/respondent but insofar as seniority and other service benefits are concerned, it would remain intact."
The court found no palpable infirmity in the Single Judge's decision and dismissed the writ appeal accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: R.S. Patel, Advocate
For the Respondent: Pankaj Singh, Advocate
Case Title: Food Corporation of India and another v. Laxminarayan Barman
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:14432-DB
Case Number: WA No. 207 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
[Read/Download order]
