1 2025:CGHC:53078 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3057 of 2023 1 - Shatrughan Lal Nayak S/o Chowa Ram Nayak Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Pander, Post Office And Tahsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Municipal Corporation Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh, Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - The Municipal Corporation Risali District Durg Chhattisgarh Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Risali Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - The Additional Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For State For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer Ms. Shrija Kesharwani, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30.10.2025 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the order dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 4 declaring illegal and may kindly be please to direct the respondents to pay the due salary of the petitioner from 01.02.2023 with interest of 12% per annum, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire relevant records from the respondents. 10.3 That, Any other order of orders or Direction or Relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The case facts, briefly stated, are as follows The petitioner is presently serving as an Assistant Pump Operator under the office of respondent no. 2 and is presently attached to the office of respondent no. 3. The office of respondent no. 3, vide letter dated 08.06.2022, informed the petitioner that he would retire from service on 31.01.2023 on the ground that he would be attaining the age of 62 years on 18.01.2023 (Annexure P/2). Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.10.2022 before respondent no. 3, requesting correction of his date of birth from 18.01.1961 to 18.08.1961 in accordance with his service records (Annexure P/3). Subsequently, 3 respondent no. 3, vide letter dated 17.11.2022, forwarded the petitioner’s entire service record to respondent no. 2 for verification and necessary correction of the date of birth in the service book (Annexure P/4). The petitioner successfully passed the Higher Secondary School Examination in 1980, wherein his date of birth is recorded as 18.08.1961 (Annexure P/5), and his mark sheet issued by the State Professional Training Council, Madhya Pradesh, also bears the same date of birth (Annexure P/6). Furthermore, in the seniority list of Pump Operators published by respondent no. 2 as on 01.04.2018, the petitioner’s name appears at serial no. 34, showing his date of birth as 18.08.1961 (Annexure P/7). The petitioner also obtained a copy of Rule 84 of the Chhattisgarh Finance Code, Part-I, under the Right to Information Act from respondent no. 2 (Annexure P/8). Despite these documentary evidences, the respondents failed to consider the petitioner’s representation, and respondent no. 4, without properly verifying the records, passed the impugned order dated 23.01.2023, retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 31.01.2023 based on the incorrect date of birth, which action is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law, thereby compelling the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner respectfully submits that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the petitioner’s correct date of birth is 4 18.08.1961, which is duly reflected in all his authentic documents, including educational certificates, mark sheets, and the seniority list of Pump Operators published by respondent no.2 as on 01.04.2018, wherein his date of birth is specifically recorded as 18.08.1961. It is further submitted that respondent no.3, having realized the clerical error, acknowledged the mistake and made a formal recommendation to respondent no.2 for correction of the petitioner’s date of birth from 18.01.1961 to 18.08.1961; however, respondent no. 4 failed to consider the same and proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 23.01.2023, retiring the petitioner from service on an incorrect basis, which renders the order unsustainable in law. The learned counsel submits that the erroneous entry in the petitioner’s service records occurred solely due to a typographical error committed by the office of respondent no. 2, and as per Rule 84 of the Chhattisgarh Finance Code, Part I, correction of such clerical or typographical mistakes is permissible under law. Despite the petitioner having submitted a representation dated 03.10.2022, well before his date of retirement, requesting rectification of the said error, the respondents failed to act upon it, thereby causing grave prejudice and injustice to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order suffers from illegality, arbitrariness, and non-application of mind, and deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3/Municipal Corporation, Risali, respectfully submits that the 5 petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner’s date of birth was duly recorded as 18.01.1961 in his original service records maintained by the competent authority at the time of his initial appointment, and all subsequent service benefits, increments, and entries were made on the basis of the said date. The petitioner, having accepted and acted upon the said date of birth throughout his service tenure, is now estopped from challenging it at the fag end of his career merely to secure an undue extension of service. It is further submitted that the alleged discrepancy in the date of birth was raised by the petitioner only in October 2022, i.e., just a few months prior to his scheduled date of retirement, which clearly demonstrates that the claim is an afterthought and intended to delay his superannuation. Respondent no. 3, upon receiving the petitioner’s representation, duly forwarded his service records to respondent no. 2 for verification, but no conclusive evidence was found on record to warrant alteration of the date of birth already recorded in the service book. As per the settled legal position and the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Finance Code, correction of date of birth after long lapse of service is not permissible except in cases of clear clerical error supported by irrefutable documentary proof, which is absent in the present case. Therefore, the action of retiring the petitioner upon his attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2023, based on his recorded date of birth, is legal, justified, and in accordance with 6 the rules. Hence, the present petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed with costs. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that he fully supports the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and adopts the same. It is further submitted that the Municipal Corporation, Risali (respondent no. 3 herein), being the competent and concerned authority in relation to the service matters of the petitioner, is the principal contesting party in the present proceedings. 6. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and carefully examined the materials on record with due circumspection. 7. Upon a thorough examination of the evidence placed on record, it is clearly established that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 18.08.1961, as duly recorded in Annexure P/5, the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1980, issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Further, it is evident that the petitioner initially entered into service under the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, and as reflected in the Gradation List (Annexure P/7), the petitioner’s name appears at serial no. 34, wherein his date of birth is correctly mentioned as 18.08.1961. Upon the constitution of the Municipal Corporation, Risali, the services of the petitioner were transferred from the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, to the newly formed Municipal Corporation, Risali. The documentary evidence on record, 7 therefore, unequivocally establishes that the entry of the date of birth as 18.01.1961 in the petitioner’s service book is the result of a clerical or typographical error. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s date of birth has been erroneously recorded as 18.01.1961, and the same deserves to be corrected to 18.08.1961. Consequently, the premature retirement of the petitioner on the basis of the incorrect date of birth is held to be illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the respondent no. 3 – Municipal Corporation, Risali is, therefore, directed to rectify the petitioner’s date of birth in all relevant service records as 18.08.1961 and to extend to him all consequential service benefits, including reinstatement, arrears of salary, and other admissible dues from the month of February, 2023 to August, 2023, along with interest @ 6% per annum on all the monetary benefits payable to him. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Consequently, this petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena