Seeking Change In Recorded Date Of Birth After Retirement Impermissible Under Law: Karnataka High Court

Background Facts

The Petitioner was employed as a Pulp Drawing Processor on 01.10.1983. He retired from service on 09.03.2006. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner orally provided his date of birth as 30.03.1952, but he did not submit any documentary proof of his date of birth.

It was believed by the petitioner that his date of birth had been recorded as 30.03.1952 in the service records. However, the Employer had recorded it as 10.03.1948. This was based on the details the petitioner had provided in his provident fund declaration and a certificate from his school. According to this recorded date, the petitioner reached the retirement age of 58 on 09.03.2006.

After his retirement, the Petitioner obtained a birth certificate from the Deputy Tahsildar, which indicated his date of birth as 30.03.1952. He believed that he should have retired in 2010 instead of 2006 and made a representation to the employer. The Petitioner was seeking reinstatement to continue his service until 2010 or the payment of benefits up to that date.

The employer rejected his claim arguing that his date of birth was properly recorded as 10.03.1948, as per the documents submitted during his employment. It was further argued that the Petitioner had accepted his retirement benefits and did not raise any issue about his date of birth at the time of retirement.

The Petitioner approached the Labour Court to challenge his retirement date. However, the court dismissed his claim. Aggrieved by the Labour Court's decision, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the Petitioner attempted to change his date of birth only after his retirement. He claimed that his actual date of birth was 30.03.1952 instead of 10.03.1948 recorded in the service records. The court emphasized that this attempt was made two years after his retirement, which raised questions about the legitimacy of the claim.

The court relied on the Supreme Court Judgment in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others v. Shyam Kishore Singh (AIR 2020 Sc 940, AIR 2020 3 SCC 411), wherein it was held that seeking a change in the date of birth after retirement is not permissible, especially when the employee had opportunities during their service to rectify any discrepancies but did not do so. It was found by the court that the petitioner in this case could not be allowed to alter his date of birth post-retirement.

Further, it was noted by the court that as per Clause 29 of the Standing Orders of the employer, the date of birth recorded in the provident fund declaration form is treated as conclusive evidence. The petitioner had declared his date of birth as 10.03.1948 which was consistent with the date of birth recorded in his service register. This was also recorded in a certificate issued from his school.

It was observed by the court that the petitioner had accepted his retirement benefits and did not raise any dispute during his service or immediately after his retirement. Further, it was found that the petitioner's claim, made two years after retirement, lacked credibility and was an attempt to seek undue advantage.

Based on the above observations, the court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: GUDDAPPA NINGAPPA KOLAJI AND THE MANAGEMENT OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES

Case No. : W.P. No. 146666 of 2020

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 371

Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Sri Santosh S. Hattikatgai, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Sri Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, Advocate