Employees Should Not Be Permitted To Change Date Of Birth At The Fag End Of Their Service Career: Orissa High Court

"Apart from the notification and the said guidelines, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of cases have categorically laid down that the employees should not be permitted to change the date of birth at the fag end of their service career. In the instant case the application of alteration has been filed at the fag end of the Petitioner's service career."

Factual Background:

The petitioner is presently working as a peon in the Dinapadma High School, Baghamund, in the district of Bolangir. He had made representations complaining that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded as 01.02.1963 instead of 01.02.1965. Further, he had also submitted that the date of birth in the Government UP School Admission Register and in his Aadhar Card is recorded as 01.02.1965 but it is mentioned as 01.02.1963 in the service book and school leaving certificate.

Hence, he filed this writ petition praying for correction of the date of birth from 01.02.1963 to 01.02.1965 which has been wrongly recorded in his service book entry. It was claimed on his behalf that if his date of birth is not subjected to correction within a reasonable period of time, then the he will face the problem of premature retirement and irreparable loss as well as injury.

Court's Findings:

The Court, at the outset, relied on a notification dated 30^th January 1995, issued by the Government of Odisha. It stipulated that no alternation of the date of birth once recorded in the Service Book/Service Roll of an employee shall be made, except in case of clerical error, without prior approval of the State Government. Further, it enshrined that an application for effecting a change in the date of birth shall be summarily rejected if it is filed after five years of entry into government service.

The Court held that it is undoubtedly and indisputably clear that the instant application of the petitioner is time-barred, as it was not filed within five years from his date of joining. To that effect, it relied on the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan, wherein it was held that government servants should not be permitted to correct the date of birth at the fag end of their service careers.

Further, it noted that in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. v. R. Kirubakaran, the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that the courts have to be extremely careful when application for alteration of the date of birth is filed on the eve of superannuation or near-about that time. The Apex Court observed,

"...As such whenever an application for alteration of the date of birth is made on the eve of superannuation or near about that time, the court or the tribunal concerned should be more cautious because of the growing tendency amongst a section of public servants to raise such a dispute without explaining as to why this question was not raised earlier..."

At the end, it relied upon State of Uttaranchal & Ors. v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, wherein relief was denied to a government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades.

After taking note of all these authoritative precedents in the light of factual matrix, the Court was constrained to conclude,

"From the conspectus of factual matrix taken note of above, this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner's claim is time-barred and hence, cannot be entertained. Moreover, in view of the consistent legal position and even on a plain reading of the Notification and the guidelines set out in the succeeding paragraphs leads to the conclusion that no application for alteration of date of birth after five years be entertained."

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Ugrasen Sahu v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 12015 of 2022

Judgment Dated: 27^th May 2022

Coram: Justice S.K. Panigrahi

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. D.J. Sahu, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, Standing Counsel

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 88

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment