JABALPUR, India, Oct. 25 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Sept. 25:

1. By taking exception to the order passed by learned Single Judge on 12.09.2025 dismissing the Writ Petition No.30467/2025 by the appellant seeking direction to respondents to correct the date of birth of appellant in service record and setting aside the retirement information notice , the instant intra court appeal has been preferred.

2. Heard Shri Vitthal Rao Jumre, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant on the question of admission.

3. Facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed in respondent organization on 11.09.1984 on the post of temporary Badali Tub Loader at the age of 19 years and in the service record his date of birth was recorded as 24.09.1965, whereas, as per the appellant, he borne on 21.06.1966. When the appellant came to know about the date of birth recorded in the service record through RTI on 22.04.2013, the appellant issued a letter on 19.09.2024 for correction of his date of birth in service record, which was rejected by respondent No.5. On 03.10.2024, retirement notice was issued mentioning the date of superannuation of the appellant as 30.09.2025. The said retirement notice was challenged by appellant in the subject writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2025 by the learned Single Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that application submitted by the appellant for correction of date of birth along with the educational certificates, PAN card, Driving licence, Aadhar card ought to have been accepted by the respondent. He further submits that from bare perusal of documents, it appears that his date of birth has been erroneously recorded in service record, which is liable to be corrected and appellant be permitted to continue in service till 30.06.2026.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

6. Learned Single Judge has considered the facts of the case in detail and held that appellant was sitting tight over the matter despite being provided the information in the month of April 2013 that his date of birth has been recorded in service record as 24.09.1965 but no effort was made by appellant to take any action for correction in the date of birth for a period of 10 years and at the fag end of the career, request for correction of the date of birth was made, which cannot be accepted in view of judgment delivered by Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411, wherein the Supreme Court has held that at the fag end of the career, request for correction of date of birth should not be accepted.

7. From perusal of record, it appears that a nomination form was signed and submitted by the appellant nominating his wife in the year 2012, wherein he himself has mentioned the date of birth as 24.09.1965. No explanation has been offered by the appellant for mentioning wrong date of birth in the nomination form. The same date of birth was mentioned in FormB but the appellant submitted that the said form was signed by the appellant in the blank position and later on, the information was filled up by the clerk of respondents. However, no such explanation was placed by the appellant in respect of Form PS-3, wherein, the particulars of family was submitted and Form PS-4, which is a nomination form. Both the forms were duly signed by the appellant and submitted on 08.08.2012, wherein the appellant himself has mentioned his date of birth as 24.09.1965. A declaration was also submitted by the appellant on 26.10.1985, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 24.09.1965.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2025/WA/2761/WA_2761_2025_FinalOrder_25-09-2025_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.