Court’s Decision
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench), presided over by Justice Alok Awasthi, allowed a petition filed by the Public Works Department challenging a Labour Court order that had directed continuation of service for a retired employee based on a changed date of birth.
The Court held that once an employee has served throughout his career with a recorded date of birth, he cannot seek to alter it at the verge of retirement or after superannuation. Such an attempt, the Court said, is impermissible under the law and contrary to the Madhya Pradesh Financial Code, which allows correction of the date of birth only in case of typographical errors.
Justice Awasthi categorically stated:
“An employee, having signed service records with open eyes for decades, cannot later claim a different date of birth to extend service tenure. Such a claim made after retirement is an afterthought and devoid of merit.”
Consequently, the High Court set aside the Labour Court’s order dated 16 August 2018 and restored the retirement order passed by the Department.
Facts
The respondent was appointed as a Gangman in the Public Works Department on 1 March 1978. His date of birth was recorded as 1 October 1954 in the official service book. Based on this entry, the department issued an order of retirement effective 30 October 2016.
However, the respondent claimed that his actual date of birth was 3 June 1959, as reflected in his school certificate (Exhibit P/7) and transfer certificate (Exhibit D/4). He argued that the service book entry was incorrect and sought to continue in employment for five additional years.
He filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court, Ujjain, claiming continuation in service and payment of salary for the extended period.
The Department opposed the application, citing the M.P. Financial Code, Rules 84–85, which restrict alteration of the date of birth in service records except in cases of clerical or typographical errors. Despite this, the Labour Court directed the Department to treat the respondent’s date of birth as 3 June 1959 and continue him in service accordingly, with full salary to be paid within one month.
Aggrieved, the Department filed a writ petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the Labour Court’s order.
Issues
- Whether an employee can claim alteration of his date of birth in service records at or after the verge of retirement.
- Whether the Labour Court erred in granting service continuation despite the express bar in the M.P. Financial Code.
- Whether school records produced belatedly could override long-standing official service entries acknowledged by the employee throughout his tenure.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The Department contended that the date of birth recorded in the service book since 1978 was consistently acknowledged and signed by the employee throughout his career. It was argued that the M.P. Financial Code, particularly Rule 84–85, bars alteration of the date of birth except for correcting a clear typographical mistake.
The Department relied on the precedent Chintaram v. State of M.P. & Others (W.P. No. 17469/2013, decided on 23 March 2017), wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that an employee cannot be allowed to “turn around at the fag end of his career and claim a different date of retirement.”
Counsel for the Department submitted that permitting such post-retirement claims would open the floodgates for misuse and administrative chaos. The Labour Court, it was argued, failed to consider that the respondent’s alleged documents were produced decades after joining service, clearly as an afterthought.
The Department further stressed that the date of birth in service records is the only authoritative entry for determining retirement, not external certificates produced belatedly.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent, though served, did not appear before the High Court. His submissions, as recorded before the Labour Court, were considered. He had claimed that the school certificate and transfer certificate constituted authentic proof of his true date of birth — 3 June 1959 — and that the service book entry of 1 October 1954 was incorrect.
He argued that the Department’s error in recording his birth date could not deprive him of five years of legitimate service. He asserted that his claim was based on genuine documents and not an afterthought.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed Rules 84 and 85 of the Madhya Pradesh Financial Code, which govern corrections of date of birth in government service. These rules stipulate that once the date of birth is recorded in the service book and verified, it cannot be changed except to correct a clerical or typographical mistake discovered at the time of entry or soon thereafter.
The Court underscored that service book entries carry evidentiary sanctity and are maintained after due verification from the employee himself. Having accepted and signed the service records for nearly four decades, the respondent could not later disown them.
The Court emphasized that an application for change of date of birth must be made within a reasonable time, preferably early in service, not after decades of acquiescence. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under which the Labour Court entertained the application, does not confer jurisdiction to alter recorded dates of birth, especially when the governing service rules bar such alteration.
Precedent Analysis
- Chintaram v. State of M.P. (2017) – The High Court held that no employee can seek alteration of date of birth after retirement, as such claims are inherently belated and self-serving. This precedent was directly applied to reject the respondent’s plea.
- Chhota Birsa Uranw Case (referred but distinguished) – The Labour Court had relied on this judgment, which dealt with the employees of Coal India Ltd. under Implementation Instruction No. 76. The High Court clarified that this precedent does not apply to government servants governed by the M.P. Financial Code, which contains express statutory restrictions.
Through these distinctions, the Court reaffirmed that sector-specific employment codes prevail over generalized industrial precedents.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Awasthi observed that the petition was filed on 16 January 2019, after the employee had already retired in October 2016. The Court held that any claim for alteration of the date of birth after retirement is untenable in law.
“The respondent, with open eyes, signed various service documents containing his date of birth as 01.10.1954. After retirement, he cannot be permitted to turn around and claim a different date of retirement.”
The Court noted that the certificates produced were clearly procured later to justify an extended tenure. Such evidence, in the Court’s view, lacked probative value and could not override the authenticated service book records.
The Court also rejected the Labour Court’s reasoning as contrary to settled law and devoid of jurisdiction. It reiterated that Labour Courts cannot re-determine an employee’s age in contravention of statutory rules binding government departments.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the Labour Court’s order directing continuation of service and payment of salary based on the altered date of birth was erroneous and beyond its jurisdiction. The impugned order dated 16 August 2018 was thus quashed and set aside.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the order directing the Department to continue the respondent in service as per his claimed date of birth is not in accordance with law.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the Department’s retirement order stood restored.
Implications
- The judgment reinforces that an employee cannot claim a change in date of birth at the fag end of service or after retirement.
- Service book entries are final and binding, carrying presumptive authenticity over external certificates produced later.
- Labour Courts and Tribunals lack jurisdiction to modify official service records governed by statutory financial codes.
- The decision upholds administrative consistency and prevents abuse of process by belated alteration claims.
