Employee's Plea For D.O.B. Correction At Fag End Of Service: Meghalaya HC Rejects Citing Inordinate Delay

Background Facts

The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Primary School Teacher by the Education Department, vide appointment letter dated 28.09.1987. She joined service on 29.09.1987 at Shangpung Pohshnong Lower Primary School. Later she was transferred to Shangpung Neinshnong Lower Primary School where she continued to serve until her superannuation. The petitioner's actual date of birth is 26.08.1967, but it was incorrectly recorded as 26.08.1966 in the official service records. The petitioner alleged that her School Leaving Certificate at the time of joining was tampered with to reflect the wrong year of birth. Therefore, she was deprived of one additional year of service and consequential benefits. The petitioner discovered the error in November 2019 during an inspection of her service records but did not take any legal steps until her retirement.

The petitioner filed the writ petition in 2025 seeking correction of the date of birth and issuance of appropriate directions for grant of benefits for the extra year of service lost.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the School Leaving Certificate dated 23.04.1987, which had been submitted to the respondents at the time of joining, had been tampered with to show the date of birth as 26.08.1966. It was submitted that further efforts had been made by the writ petitioner to get the same corrected, and a duplicate Matriculation Admit Card was also obtained to substantiate this fact. It was submitted that the writ petitioner was never afforded adequate opportunity to present her case, nor was she informed about the change in the date of birth, nor was any action taken on the allegations of tampering.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the State respondents that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the petitioner became aware of the discrepancy in her date of birth in November 2019, but chose to approach the Court only in 2025, after her retirement. It was contended that such a delay reflects a lack of due diligence and defeats the claim for correction of service records. The State respondents further contended that there is bar on such corrections under the Fundamental Rules & Supplementary Rules (FR & SR) of Meghalaya, at the fag end of service. It was further submitted that as per the Note to SR 8 of the FR & SR Rules, no alteration in the date of birth of a government servant is permitted except in very rare cases involving manifest error, and even then, it must be corrected at the earliest opportunity, preferably during periodical verification. It was contended that the petitioner failed to raise any objection during her entire service period, despite having access to her service book where the date of birth was clearly recorded as 26.08.1966.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the petitioner had access to her service book throughout her career, in which her date of birth was consistently recorded as 26.08.1966, but no objection or representation for correction was made at any point during her service. The petitioner approached the Court only after her superannuation. It was held by the court that such delayed action reflects gross negligence and lack of diligence, particularly when the petitioner herself admitted to having knowledge of the alleged discrepancy as early as November 2019.

It was further observed that even if the School Leaving Certificate and duplicate Matriculation Admit Card relied upon by the petitioner are assumed to be genuine, no material was placed on record to show that these documents were actually submitted to the authorities at the time of appointment. The Court emphasized that under the Note appended to SR 8 of the FR & SR Rules of Meghalaya, alteration in the date of birth is permitted only in very rare cases of manifest error, and even then, such requests must be made at the earliest stage, not after retirement. It was found by the court that the petitioner had failed to exercise due diligence and slept over her rights for decades. It was held by the Court that the petitioner's claim was barred by delay, laches, and absence of timely representation. Thus the petition did not warrant any relief.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Name : Smti. Martinewbell Suchiang vs. The State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Case No. : WP(C) No. 46 of 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : S.R. Lyngdoh, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : I. Lyngwa, R. Colney, GA.