Correction Of Date Of Birth In Service Records Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right At Fag End Of Service : Jharkhand HC

Background Facts

The appellant was appointed as a Temporary Underground Loader on 02.12.1986 under the employment of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL). At the time of his appointment, he submitted his Matriculation Certificate issued in 1982 from Khalsa High School, Dhanbad, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 05.10.1965. While preparing the service excerpt, his date of birth was not entered. In Form-B, his age was recorded as 24 years as on 07.05.1986 based on the medical examination report.

On 20.03.2007, after more than two decades of service, the appellant submitted a representation seeking correction of his date of birth in the service records as per his Matriculation Certificate. The certificate was verified by the concerned school and found to be genuine. But the respondents did not rectify the records. The appellant was made to retire on 31.05.2022 on the basis of the date of birth recorded in Form-B. Aggrieved, he filed a petition seeking correction of his date of birth, but it was dismissed on 09.09.2024.

Similarly, another appellant was appointed on 13.07.1990 as Miner Loader. His Matriculation Certificate showed his date of birth as 07.06.1966, but his age in the service records was wrongly recorded as 26 years as on 27.06.1990, which implied his date of birth as 27.06.1964. He raised an objection on 25.11.2013 and submitted representations seeking correction. However, the General Manager (P&IR) rejected his claim on 14/15.10.2020. Thereafter, he filed a petition which was dismissed on 11.06.2024.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of their respective writ petitions, both appellants filed the Letters Patent Appeals challenging the orders of the Single Judges.

It was submitted by the first appellant that the respondents ignored the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate, which was submitted at the time of appointment. Further respondents relied on the age assessed by the Medical Board for preparing Form-B. The appellant relied upon the provisions of Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III, which state that in case of a matriculate employee, the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate issued prior to employment shall be treated as final. It was further submitted that Clause 37 of the Certified Standing Orders requires the employer to verify educational certificates before entering the date of birth in the service record. The appellant contended that it resulted in his premature retirement three years prior to the actual age of superannuation.

It was argued by the other appellant that Clause (B)(i)(a) of Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III provides that in respect of existing employees, the Matriculation or Higher Secondary Certificate issued before employment should be treated as correct for determining the date of birth. The appellant submitted that he had furnished his Matriculation Certificate at the time of joining, which recorded his date of birth as 07.06.1966, but the service record reflected his age as 26 years as on 27.06.1990. It was further contended that the rejection order did not state that the incorrect entry was made by the appellant himself. The appellant submitted that he had filled only the nominee and family details in Hindi, but the front page containing the date of birth was filled by someone else.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the appellants had not submitted their Matriculation Certificates at the time of appointment. Therefore, their ages were determined by the Medical Board. Further the appellants accepted the entries without raising any objection at that time. It was further contended that the appellants raised the issue of incorrect date of birth only after more than two decades of service, at the verge of retirement.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that both appellants raised their claims for correction of date of birth after an inordinate delay of more than two decades. It was further observed that both appellants had signed their service records, including Form-B, without raising any objection. They appeared before the Medical Board for determination of age at the time of appointment. It indicated that the appellants were aware of the entries in their service records from the very beginning but chose to remain silent for an unreasonable period. It was held by the Court that the burden was on the appellants to establish that they had submitted their Matriculation Certificates at the time of joining, but no sufficient documents were produced to prove it.

The case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh was relied upon by the court wherein it was held that correction of date of birth in service records is not a right, even with strong evidence, especially when it is sought near the retirement. Therefore, such correction requires irrefutable proof, adherence to prescribed procedure and proof of real injustice.

It was held by the Court that the correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right, even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous. If the delay in applying for correction of date of birth is of more than two decades, then the same is regarded fatal to the case of the concerned employee.

Further the case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors. was relied upon by the court wherein it was held 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 and it is not the case of the employee that there has been any arithmetical mistake or typographical error patent on the face of the record, then the High Court should not interfere with the decision of the employer.

It was held by the Court that the dates of birth of the appellants were determined after following the procedure for determination/verification of age of the employees as prescribed under Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III and no manipulation was found in the entries of the dates of birth of the appellants made in their service records. Hence, it was held that the decision of the respondents has rightly not been interfered with by the Single Judge.

With the aforesaid observations, both Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed by the court.

Case Name : Uma Ram vs M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors

Case No. : L.P.A. No. 81 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : P. K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate, Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : A. K. Mehta, Advocate, Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate