Correction Of Date Of Birth Cannot Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right Even If Evidence Shows Error: Jharkhand High Court
The Court dismissed appeals seeking correction of dates of birth in service records, holding that delayed claims after decades of service cannot be entertained, even when matriculation certificates suggest otherwise.
Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Justice Rajesh Shankar, Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the correction of date of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a matter of right, even if there is evidence to suggest that the recorded entry is erroneous.
The Court emphasised that such claims, particularly when raised decades after joining service, are fatal and cannot be allowed to unsettle settled records
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed 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.”
Advocates P.K. Mukhopadhyay and Kalyan Banerjee represented the appellants, while Advocates A.K. Mehta and Amit Kumar Sinha appeared for Bharat Coking Coal Limited.
Background
The appeals were filed by two retired employees of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), both of whom sought correction of their dates of birth recorded in the service records on the basis of their matriculation certificates.
In one case, the appellant claimed that despite submitting his matriculation certificate at the time of appointment in 1986, his age was recorded in Form B on the basis of a medical report, ultimately leading to his premature retirement. In the other case, the appellant alleged that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in his service record at the time of joining in 1990 and that repeated representations for correction based on his matriculation certificate went unheeded.
Both petitions before the Single Judge were dismissed, leading to the present appeals before the Division Bench
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that while Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA-III) prescribes matriculation certificates as the primary proof of age for employees, the appellants had not raised objections to the entries in their service records for more than two decades. The Bench highlighted that both employees had signed their records without protest and had even participated in the medical board assessments.
The judges held that raising such disputes at the fag end of service, without sufficient explanation for the delay, is impermissible. They further observed that disputed questions of fact regarding whether matriculation certificates were furnished at the time of appointment cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents including Shyam Kishore Singh and Shib Kumar Dushad, the Court reiterated that delay of over two decades in seeking correction is fatal, and even strong evidence of error cannot justify such belated claims.
Conclusion
Dismissing the appeals, the Bench held that there was no infirmity in the orders of the Single Judges refusing to interfere with the decisions of BCCL. The Court concluded that the appellants had failed to prove timely submission of their matriculation certificates and that their long inaction disentitled them to relief.
“The present appeals being devoid of merit are, accordingly, dismissed,” the Court concluded.
Cause 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)
Appearances
Appellants: Advocate P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Kalyan Banerjee
Respondents: Advocates A.K. Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha