1 CGHC010348902022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7648 of 2022 Order reserved on 14.05.2026 Order pronounced on 24.08.2026 Order uploaded on 24.08.2026 Mahendra Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Rambriksh Ram Gupta aged about 56 years, R/o Near Ekanth Sweet, Village Satpata, Post Office Bishrampur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Senior Manager, (Personnel) Bishrampur Aamgaon Co. Region, Bishrampur Colliery Area District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 3. Co Regional Manager, Bishrampur Aamgaon Co Region, Bishrampur Colliery Area District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 4. Deputy Manager (Personnel), Bishrampur Aamgaon Co Region, Bishrampur Colliery Area District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 5. Assistant Manager, Personnel Kumda Sub Region, Bishrampur Area, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents : Shri V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal and Shri Atul Kesharwani, Advocates 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V Order The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. quash/set aside an order/letter dated 1/6//2022 (Annexure P/7), issued by respondent no. 3 ii. direct the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 8/11/1962 to 20/11/1966 in the service book/record of the petitioner. iii. further please to direct the respondents authorities to allow the petitioner to work as Office Superintendent, till the age of superannuation as per the actual date of birth i.e. 20/11/1966 and further please to direct to pay all the monetary and consequential benefits and relief to the petitioner. iv. call for the entire service record of the petitioner from the respondent for its kind perusal. v. any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the letter/order dated 01.06.2022 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby notice was issued to the petitioner informing him that on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the departmental records as 08.11.1962, he would attain the age of superannuation and would consequently retire from service on 30.11.2022. It is stated that actual date of birth of the petitioner is 20.11.1966 and, accordingly, he still has approximately 4 years of service remaining. It is submitted that his correct date of birth, i.e. 20.11.1966, was duly reflected in the relevant departmental records. The petitioner had also raised an objection regarding his date of birth in the year 1987, pursuant to which the same was corrected, and his correct date of birth was thereafter recorded in the relevant PS-3 and PS-4 records. It is 3 further stated that despite the aforesaid correction and the existence of departmental records reflecting his date of birth as 20.11.1966, the respondents subsequently and without any lawful justification recorded his date of birth as 08.11.1962 and, on that basis, issued the impugned notice directing his premature retirement with effect from 30.11.2022. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities had assured him that his date of birth would be duly corrected on the basis of the documents relied upon by him, including his marksheets and the relevant dakhil-kharij records. However, contrary to such assurance, the respondents proceeded to issue the impugned retirement notice on the basis of an incorrect date of birth. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this case is only as to the correction of date of birth of the petitioner in service records. He submits that the petitioner was appointed on 09.11.1984 at Kumda Colliery as a casual piece-rated worker and was regularised in October, 1987. At the time of appointment, he was an educated person and had produced his educational certificates as proof of age. His Primary, Middle and Higher Secondary records support his date of birth as 20.11.1966. He further submits that initial Form-B No. 960, prepared at the time of appointment and supplied by the respondents themselves under the RTI Act, records the petitioner's date of birth as 20.11.1966. The same date is consistently recorded in the Dakhil-Kharij Register, PS-3, PS-4, CMPF Nomination Form-A and Certificate of Practical Experience (Annexure PR/9), several of which were duly certified by the management itself. He further submits that the respondents rely upon the Service Book showing the date of birth as 08.11.1962. However, even in the Service Book, the date of birth in words reads “Twenty Nov. Sixty-Six”, with the last word “Six” appearing to have been subsequently tampered with/inked. The Service Book is admittedly in the custody of the respondents. He further submits that the petitioner had also raised an objection against the incorrect Service Book entry on 16.08.1987, and therefore there was no 4 unexplained delay or acquiescence on his part. Despite the importance of the original Form-B, the respondents have failed to produce the original record from their custody. Thus, the contemporaneous and independently corroborated documents overwhelmingly establish 20.11.1966 as the petitioner's correct date of birth whereas the solitary disputed entry relied upon by the respondents cannot prevail over the original Form-B and other records maintained/certified by the management itself. He placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw, 2014 AIR SCW 2634, Parmarth v. Chief General Manager, W.A. No.18/2024, decided on 27.03.2024, Jai Prakash Singh v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and others, W.A. No.480 of 2023, decided on 14.03.2024, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chhattisgarh v. Ashok Kumar Thakur, AIR OnLine 2020 Chh 177 and Kanhaiyalal Yadav v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others, WPS 3002 of 2015 decided on 10.11.2023 regarding determination of date of birth on the basis of reliable contemporaneous records. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the premature retirement order dated 01.06.2022, based on the erroneous date of birth of 08.11.1962, deserves to be quashed. The petitioner is entitled to continue in service on the basis of his correct date of birth, i.e. 20.11.1966, with all consequential benefits. Therefore, he prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed/set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking correction of his date of birth only at the fag end of his service. The impugned notice was issued on 01.06.2022 whereas the present writ petition was instituted on 31.10.2022, barely 30 days prior to the petitioner’s proposed date of retirement, i.e. 30.11.2022. It was, therefore, contended that such a belated claim 5 for alteration of date of birth cannot be entertained at the verge of retirement. Reliance was placed upon Laxmina Devi v. SECL & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 4561 and Daulat Ram Chauhan v. SECL & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 2387. It was further submitted that correction of date of birth is not a matter of right, particularly, when the claim is raised at the fag end of service. Reliance was placed on Ram Balak Pandey v. SECL & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 4717. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the controversy involves disputed questions of fact which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was pointed out that the petitioner has allegedly done overwriting/manipulation in the service records, while discrepancies exist in the documents relied upon by him, including the school certificates. The date of issuance of such certificates is also disputed and has material relevance, particularly, as it has not been established that the certificates were issued prior to the petitioner’s appointment. Such factual issues, according to the respondents, would require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in writ jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on Coal India Ltd. & Anr. v. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee & Ors., (2005) 12 SCC 201. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that acceptance of the alleged date of birth of the petitioner as 20.11.1966 would mean that he was below 18 years of age on the date of his appointment, i.e. 09.11.1984, which itself casts serious doubt upon the claim. It was contended that the petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate, having accepted the date of birth recorded as 08.11.1962 throughout his service, including at the time of his last promotion to the post of Office Superintendent Grade-A. The promotion order and the accompanying list bear the petitioner’s signature acknowledging his date of birth as 08.11.1962, as reflected from Annexure R-8 appended to the Additional Counter Affidavit dated 19.02.2026. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner has failed to establish any 6 legally enforceable claim for alteration of his date of birth and that the writ petition, being belated and involving disputed questions of fact, deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care. 9. Before adverting to merits of the case, this Court would proceed to have a glimpse on the documents placed by the petitioner to substantiate his date of birth as 20.11.1966. The petitioner along with his petition and by filing his rejoinder and application for taking document on record relied upon the following documents to suggest his date of birth as 20.11.1966 : (i) Class 5 Marksheet, (ii) Middle School Marksheet, (iii) Higher Secondary School Certificate Marksheet issued by Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, (iv) Dakhil Kharij Register, (v) Voter ID Card, (vi) Aadhaar Card, (vii) Pan Card, (viii) Form B issued by Western Coalfields Limited, (ix) Form PS-3, (x) Form PS-4, (xi) Coal Mines Provident Fund Declaration. 10. To counter the date of birth of the petitioner, the respondents have relied upon the same Form B, service register of Western Coalfields Limited, promotion orders of the petitioner, whereby the petitioner admitted his date of birth as 8.11.1962. 11. Thus, on one hand, placing reliance on the above documents, the petitioner claims himself to be born on 20.11.1966, whereas, according to the respondents, his date of birth is 8.11.1962. The law with regard to interference by Courts in the 7 matter of correction of date of birth is no longer res integra. It is settled position of law that an employee cannot make a challenge for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his career. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra) has observed as under: “14. As noted by us, the respondent in 1987 on coming to know of the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service records from the nomination form sought rectification. Therefore, such rectification was not sought at the fag end of his service. We have further noticed that the High Court duly verified the genuineness of the school leaving certificate on the basis of a supplementary affidavit filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Mishra, legal inspector of the appellant company on September 6, 2010 before the High Court. It has been admitted in the said supplementary affidavit that the school leaving certificate has been verified and has been found to be genuine. We have further noticed that Implementation Instruction No.76 clause (i) (a) permits rectification of the date of birth by treating the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate to be correct provided such certificates were issued by the educational institution prior to the date of employment. The question of interpreting the words 'were issued was correctly interpreted, in our opinion, by the High Court which interpreted the said words for the purpose of safeguarding against misuse of the certificates for the purpose of increasing the period of employment. The High Court correctly interpreted and meant that these words will not apply where the school records containing the date of birth were available long before the starting of the employment. The date of issue of certificate actually intends to refer to the date with the relevant record in the school on the basis of which the certificate has been issued. A school leaving certificate is usually issued at the time of leaving the school by the student, subsequently a copy thereof also can be obtained where a student misplaces his said school leaving certificate and applies for a fresh copy thereof. The issuance of fresh copy cannot change the relevant record which is prevailing in the records of the school from the date of 8 the admission and birth date of the student, duly entered in the records of the school.” 13. In case of Jai Prakash Singh (supra), this Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner therein against an order of dismissal of his writ petition for correction of date of birth holding that the writ petition was not filed at the fag end of his career. In case of Parmarth (supra), the writ appeal of the petitioner therein was allowed by this Court against the correction of his date of birth. In case of Laxmina Devi (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein for correction of date of birth was dismissed holding that the same cannot be done at the fag end of her career. In case of Daulat Ram Chauhan (supra), the writ appeal filed by the petitioner therein was dismissed affirming the order of the Single Bench dismissing the writ petition. In case of Ram Balak Pandey (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein against the dismissal of his writ petition for correction of date of birth was dismissed. In case of Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee (supra), it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an employee should not be permitted to seek change in his date of birth at the fag end of his service career. 14. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that the documents which were relied upon by the petitioner spell out the date of his birth as 20.11.1966. Both the parties relied upon Form B of Western Coalfields Limited. In one Form B filed by the petitioner bearing Serial No.960 his date of birth is 20.11.1966, whereas in Form B submitted by the respondents bearing Serial No.928 the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 8.11.1962. The respondents have placed on record the service record of the petitioner issued from Western Coalfields Limited in which in figures his date of birth is mentioned as 8.11.1962, whereas in words it is mentioned as ‘Twenty Nov. Sixty Six’. It is to be mentioned here that the word ‘Six’ appears to have been rubbed. 9 15. The declaration submitted by the petitioner in respect of the Coal Mines Provident Fund (Annexure P5) indicates his date of birth as 20.11.1966. On its backside, certificate of the declaration signed by the petitioner has been read over to him by the Personnel Manager, Vishrampur on 12.5.2006. Thus, the document indicates that the officer of the respondents was informed of the date of birth of the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that when there is a dispute of date of birth filled in the Form B issued by Western Coalfields Limited, it becomes a disputed fact which would require evidence to be led and this factual finding cannot be recorded in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It has been further argued that the petitioner has accepted his promotion in the year 2020 and vide the document attached to it in which the petitioner has put in his signature he admitted his date of birth as 8.11.1962. The challenge is made at the fag end of his career, thus, no relief can be granted. 17. Now, this Court will have to see as to whether on the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was aware of his date of birth mentioned in the service record and as to whether he sought the correction in the date of birth at the time of fag end of his career and as to whether his date of birth is 20.11.1966. 18. The dispute with regard to date of birth has arisen on 23.6.1987 when the particulars of service record (Annexure P6) was given to the petitioner indicating therein his date of birth as 8.11.1962. In the acknowledgment, in the backside, the petitioner made following entry on 16.4.1987 : “tUe frfFk xyr vafdr gS d`i;k lq/kkj djus dh d`ik djsa” 19. Thereafter, various documents viz. Form PS-3 (Annexure P4) dated 28.5.1998 and Form PS-4 (Nomination Form) even dated were submitted by the 10 petitioner which were duly certified by the officials of the respondents/department. Declaration by a person employed in Coal Mines, i.e., Form of Coal Mines Provident Fund was also filled by the petitioner indicating there his date of birth as 20.11.1966. Thereafter, on 25.2.2006, 29.5.2019, 18.8.2020 and 8.11.2021, the petitioner made representations for correction of his date of birth. Thereafter, on 1.6.2022, notice of retirement was issued to the petitioner (Annexure P7) indicating therein that the petitioner would retire on 30.11.2022. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner again made representations on 4.6.2022 and 22.10.2022 for correction of his date of birth. It appears that the respondents turned deaf to the various representations made by the petitioner and no decision on such representations was taken as it does not find part of the record. Thus, from the factual scenario as quoted above and perusal of the record, it is apparent that initially in the year 1987, the petitioner made objection on his date of birth and subsequently in the year 2006 and thereafter in the year 2019, 2020 and 2021, he again made representations. When the petitioner has been raising his grievances with regard to correction of date of his birth for a long period of time, in all fairness and fitness of things, the same should have been taken into account and decided either in favour of the petitioner or against him. Thus, the respondents cannot be allowed to take a plea that the petitioner has made up his case for correction of date of birth at the fag end of his career. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner was vigilant to pursue his grievance with regard to correction of his date of birth in service record and cannot be said to have raised his issue at the fag end of his career. The case law cited by learned counsel for the respondents in the given facts and circumstances of the present case do not advance their case. 20. This leads me to the second point as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.11.1966. The documents so appended with the writ petition mentioned in the preceding paragraph, which include the testimonials of the petitioner, clearly record the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.11.1966. 11 21. In case of Parmarth (supra), taking recourse to clause (B) (i) (a) of the I.I. No.76 of the respondents, this Court held that once the petitioner therein has passed his High School Examination prior to his employment, in all fairness, the respondents should have treated his date of birth as 01.01.1965 as per clause (B) (i) (a) of the I.I. No.76. It has been observed by this Court in paragraph 7 as under: “7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is having high school certificate of the year 1980 which is filed along with the writ petition as Annexure-P/2, i.e., prior to his entry in service. Moreover the fact that the petitioner had passed his high school examination prior to his entry in service. Clause (B)(i)(a) of the I.I. No.76 reads as follows: “(i)(a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards Institutions prior to the date of employment." Once the petitioner has passed his high school examination prior to his employment in all fairness the respondents should have treated his date of birth as 01.01.1965 as per clause (B)(i)(a) of the I.I. No.76.” 12 22. In M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the I.I. No.76, held thus: “11. ….. Admittedly, the appellant as the employer in view of its own regulations being Implementation Instruction No. 76 contained in the National Coal Wage Agreement III, gave all its employees a chance to identify and rectify the discrepancies in the service records by providing them a nominee from containing details of their service records. This initiative of the appellants clearly indicated the existence of errors in service records of which the appellants were aware and were taking steps to rectify the same. Against this backdrop, the stance of the appellant that the records in the Form 'B' register must be relied upon does not hold good as it is admitted by the appellant that errors existed in the same. Even a perusal of the nominee from exhibits the ambiguity regarding the date of birth and date of joining. It was due to the discrepancies which subsisted that the appellants gave all its employees a chance to rectify the same. In such circumstances, the appellants are bound by their actions and their attempt to deny the claims of the respondent is incorrect. The respondent in this case duly followed the procedure available and the attempt of the appellant to deny the claim of the respondent on the basis of technicality is incorrect. We, therefore, fell that the learned Single Judge has correctly held that: 11. Having given the petitioner, like all employees, the benefit of seeking correction of the entries contained in their service records including their date of birth, the petitioner's claim cannot be denied, merely because he had signed upon the Form 'B' Register at the time of its opening and containing the entry of date of birth as recorded therein. 12. The appellant in the present case should have followed the procedure as laid down by Implementation Instruction No.76 to determine the date of birth of an 13 existing employee. The provisions of which read as follows: (B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. (i)(a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate of (sic: or) Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards Institutions prior to the date of employment. (i)(b) Similarly, Mining Sardarship, winding engine or similar other statutory certificate where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i)(a) and (i)(b) above are available, the date of birth recorded in (i)(a) will be treated as authentic. (ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through determination committee/medical board. (C) Age Determination Committee/medical Board for the above will be constituted by the Management. In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the company, namely, Form 'B' register, CMP Records and Identity Cards (untampered) will be treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation, in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board constituted by the Management for the determination of age. 14 (D) Age determination: by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board referred to above may consider their evidence available with the colliery manangement; and/or (E) Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to manage (sic assess) the age in accordance with the requirement of medical jurisprudence and the Medical Board will as far as possible indicate the accurate age assessed and not approximately. In another case, being G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad (supra) where the date of birth of an employee of the Bharat Coking Coal was in dispute and the same set of instructions were applicable, this court referring to the Implementation Institution held that: 20. From the provisions in the instructions referred to above, it is clear that in case of dispute over the date of birth of an existing employee who has neither a Matriculation Certificate/Secondary School Certificate nor a statutory certificate in which the Manager has certified the entry regarding the date of birth to be authentic the employer is to refer the matter to the Medical Board. 13. We give due regard to the sensitive nature of date of birth disputes and fully agree with the approach laid down in R.Kirubakaran Case, (AIR 1993 SC 2647 1993 AIR SCW 3333) (supra). However, with an aim to prevent the cascading inconveniences caused by a change of date of birth, a wronged employee should not be denied of his rights especially when he has adhered to the procedure laid down and attempted to avoid litigation by resorting to in-house mechanisms Public Corporations/Departments, should not benefit from their own omission of duty. In the present case, the appellant-company failed to follow the procedure as laid down in the Implementation Institution. It is the appellant's omission and not the inaction of the respondent which led to the dispute being raised in the courts at such a delayed stage. The attitude of such corporations wherein to 15 avoid the rectification of a date of birth, litigation is unnecessarily prolonged just because they have number of resources at their command, goes against the grain of equity and duty towards society at large. 14. As noted by us, the respondent in 1987 on coming to know of the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service records from the nomination form sought rectification. Therefore, such rectification was not sought at the fag end of his service. We have further noticed that the High Court duly verified the genuineness of the school leaving certificate on the basis of a supplementary affidavit filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Mishra, legal inspector of the appellant company on September 6, 2010 before the High Court It has been admitted in the said supplementary affidavit that the school leaving certificate has been verified and has been found to implementation Instruction No. 76 clause (i)(b) permits rectification of the date of birth by treating the certificate to be correct provided such certificates were issued by the educational institution prior to the date of employment. The question of interpreting the words 'were issued' was correctly interpreted, in our opinion, by the High Court which interpreted the said words for the purpose of safeguarding against misuse of the certificates for the purpose of increasing the period of employment. The High Court correctly interpreted and meant that these words will not apply where the school records containing the date of birth were available long before the starting of the employment. The date of issue of certificate actually intends to refer to the date with the relevant record in the school on the basis of which the certificate has been issued. A school leaving certificate is usually issued at the time of leaving the school by the student, subsequently a copy thereof also can be obtained where a student misplaces his said school leaving certificate and applies for a fresh copy thereof. The issuance of fresh copy cannot change the relevant record which is prevailing in the records of the school from the date of the admission and birth date of the student, duly entered in the records of the school.” 16 23. In Manoj Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, (2010) 11 SCC 702, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the matriculation certificate is the strong material to prove the date of birth. 24. Another facet of the case is that in the initial Form B of the Western Coalfields Limited filed by the petitioner records his date of birth as 20.11.1966. Though another Form B was filed as Annexure R1 records his date of birth as 8.11.1962 but the service register filed by the respondents as Annexure R2 records his date of birth as ‘Twenty Nov. Sixty Six’ with some portion of ‘Six’ appears to have been rubbed. Though in figures date of birth as mentioned is 8.11.1962, but, there was no occasion to write the date of birth in words as ‘Twenty Nov. Sixty Six’. Even otherwise, according to I.I. No.76, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra) and this Court in Parmarth (supra) relied upon are of no consequence, particularly, when the petitioner has been raising his grievances since the year 1987. 25. Another argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has accepted his date of birth when he was granted promotion, thus, cannot raise this ground before this Court as he is stopped by the principle of estoppel. This submission may look fancy, but, liable to be rejected as there cannot be estoppel against a law, particularly, the respondents own instruction No.76. Even otherwise, the petitioner has never forgone his legitimate right for correction of his date of birth and had been ventilating his grievances before the respondents authorities in due course of time. 26. Yet another argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that at the time of entry into the service on 9.11.1985, the petitioner would have been less than 18 years of age if his date of birth is taken to 20.11.1966. This aspect of the matter has been taken care of by this Court in Jai Prakash 17 Singh (supra) in paragraphs 13 to 16. Apart from this, the petitioner in the instant case along with reply to the additional counter affidavit has appended the list of persons appointed less than 18 years of age in SECL, Vishrampur area as Annexure P11. This has never been denied or disputed by the respondents. Even otherwise, as to whether the appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with law or not, he being minor at the time of entry in the service, is not the subject matter of this writ petition. Thus, contention is rejected. 27. Thus, on the basis of above discussion, this Court can safely held that the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.11.1966 and consequently the impugned order/letter/notice dated 1.6.2022 (Annexure P7) issued by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 8.11.1962 to 20.11.1966 in the service book/record of the petitioner. The writ petition, thus, is allowed as indicated above with consequential benefits. 28. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Ansari/Gopal AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2026.08.24 17:29:22 +0530