2025:JHHC:26722 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2028 of 2021 ------ Bishwajit Mukherjee @ Biswajit Mukhopadhyay, son of Lakhaman Mukherjee, resident of Akash Kinaree Colliery, Area-III, P.O. & P.S. Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad. … … Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its C.M.D., Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad. 2. Director Personnel, Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad. 3. General Manager, New Akashkinaree Colliery, Area-III, P.O. & P.S. Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad. 4. Project Officer, New Akashkinaree Colliery, Area-III, P.O. & P.S. Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Adv. Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate ------ 04/ 01.09.2025 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the letter dated 30.12.2020 issued by the Project Officer, New Akashkinaree Colliery, whereby the petitioner was intimated that he will superannuate on 30.06.2021, as he will attain the age of 60 years on 16.06.2021. He was also requested to submit his claim for pension and other post retiral benefits. 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have failed to consider his correct date of superannuation. As per the petitioner, he was appointed on 08.08.2014 and his date of birth was recorded by the Medical Board as 16.06.1961, indicating the petitioner to be aged about 52 ½ years on 16.12.2013. Petitioner’s 2025:JHHC:26722 2 contention is based on the admit card issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Annexure-2), which suggest that date of birth of the petitioner is 3rd April, 1968. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a representation for making correction in his date of birth from 16.06.1961 to 03.04.1968 in the official record as per the educational certificates. 5. I have gone through the writ petition and also perused the admit card of the petitioner. 6. Admittedly, the admit card was issued to the petitioner prior to the entering in service, but in spite of possessing the same, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and got his age assessed. He also did not oppose when his age was assessed to be 52 ½ years as on 16.12.2013. Further, at the time entry, a statutory Form-B register was opened. From the counter affidavit, I find that the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered in the said Form-B as 16.06.1961 indicating the petitioner to be aged about 52 ½ years as on 16.12.2013. The petitioner accepted the entry by putting his signature in English in the said Form, which means that the petitioner has accepted his date of birth, which was recorded as 52 ½ years on 16.12.2013. Once the petitioner has accepted his date of birth in all the records, he cannot challenge the same, even if there is an admit card in his favour. Further, he has filed this writ petition on 07.06.2021 i.e. just nine days before his superannuation. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 2025:JHHC:26722 3 SCC 411, has held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is necessary to quote para 10 of the said judgment which is hereunder:- “10. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 574] it is held as hereunder : (SCC pp. 667 & 669, paras 8 & 12) “8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375] ). *** 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time- limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book.” 8. From what has been held above, I am not inclined to 2025:JHHC:26722 4 entertain this writ petition. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-2