Satrughna Das vs G.M. (Min)/Project Officer, Lajakura Open Caste Project, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd

The Appellant was appointed as Senior Miscellaneous Helper Category-II with the Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (Respondent) indicating his date of birth at the time of appointment as 17th August, 1958. According to him, it is only some time in 1998 he suddenly realized that his date of birth is in fact 24th August, 1965 and accordingly he filed an affidavit sworn before the Notary Public, Jharsuguda on 28th February, 1998 and submitted it to the authorities.

After pursuing the matter with the authorities without success, the Appellant filed W.P.(C) No.26464 of 2013 in this Court for a direction to the MCL to record his date of birth as 24th August, 1965 instead of 17th August, 1958.

The basis of the above claim of the Appellant was the School certificate and the driving licence. The learned Single Judge has noted that the school certificate has been issued only in 1996 and therefore, issued only on 31st July, 1996 long after entering into the service. Importantly, the Appellant had never made any objection to the recording of his date of birth as 17th August, 1958 till the year 1998.

Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi AIR 2006 SC 2735 the learned Single Judge observed that the date of birth entered in the service record cannot be corrected at a belated stage.

Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant submits that although the Appellant has, even on the basis of the date of birth as claimed by him, attained the age of superannuation, he might get some monetary retiral benefit if the date of birth is corrected.

The Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge. The proper course for the Appellant was to have approached the Civil Court, on the basis of whatever documents he may have, for a declaratory decree as regards his correct date of birth. Further, as correctly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, it should have been done no sooner than he entered in the service and not at a belated stage.

The appeal is dismissed.

.....................................