1 2026:CGHC:18243 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9771 of 2025 1 - Shivnath Mandal S/o Tahal Mandal Aged About 56 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Mandirhasaud, Ward No. 16 Raipur, District Raipur C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Food Corporation Of India Through Regional General Manager, Raipur Region, Regional Office F C I, Vidhansabha Road, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - General Manager (Regional), Regional Office F C I, Vidhansabha Road, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - General Manager (Labour Administration), Regional Office F C I, Vidhansabha Road, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - Divisional Manager, Divisional Office F C I, Vidhansabha Road, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 5 - Manager (Depot) Mandir Hasaud, Fsd Mandir Hasaud F C I, P.S. Mandir Hasaud Raipur, District Raipur C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Nirnay Gupta, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.a. Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order to set aside or Quash the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Divisional Office, Raipur and the rejection of appeal dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the General Manager, Raipur Region. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 10.b. Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, or Direct the Respondents to treat the Petitioner's date of birth as 02.11.1969 for all service-related purposes, including retirement and pensionary benefits; 10.c. Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, Awa Restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner on the basis of the arbitrarily altered date of birth; 10.d. Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, Including costs of this petition.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sardar with respondents department and joined services on 01.01.1991. Petitioner thereafter was assigned the duties under DPS system on 01.09.1994 as worker (Mandal) posted at Food Collector Store, Shyamnagar, under Mandal Office, Bulandshahar (UP). Petitioner thereafter was transferred to the office at Raipur. He further submits that petitioner came to know that the entry of the date of birth made in some of the documents in the records of respondents is erroneously mentioned as 02.01.1964, whereas the actual date of birth of petitioner is 02.11.1969. Petitioner submitted representation on 28.02.2013. He submits that Committee was constituted and based on the recommendation made by the Committee, date of birth of petitioner was considered by respondents/department as 02.01.1966. He submits that petitioner aggrieved with which has filed writ petition. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that along with writ petition, he has enclosed the copy of the register maintained by the Food Corporation of India under Contributory Provident Fund Regulation, 1967, wherein also date of 3 birth of petitioner is clearly mentioned as 02.11.1969. He also submits that in the pay slip date of birth of petitioner is shown to be 02.11.1969, therefore, respondents be directed to correct the date of birth of petitioner in service records as 02.11.1969. He also contended that in the records of the respondents, with respect to the register maintained by them of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 in declaration form also date of birth of petitioner is mentioned as 02.11.1969, therefore, respondents be directed to correct the date of birth of petitioner in the records of respondents employer and they may be directed to reinstate the petitioner permitting him to continue in service till he attained the age of superannuation as per date of birth 02.11.1969. 3. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, he has called for the original register maintained by the respondents/department with respect to each employee in which the details of employee along with date of birth is mentioned. The said documents is also signed by the petitioner/employee at the time of its preparation. He has also placed on record the photocopies of the document today along with application for taking documents on record. From the register it is clearly appearing that the records of petitioner maintained in the respondents department under Contributory Provident Fund Regulation, 1967, date of birth of petitioner is mentioned as 02.01.1964. At the time of filling of this prescribed formate, petitioner has also made endorsement by putting his signature. The entries are of 29.07.1995. He also submits that similar is the entry made in the 4 declaration form maintained with regard to Employee Family Pension Scheme, 1971 in this document also date of birth is clearly mentioned as 02.01.1964. This document also bears the signature of petitioner. He contended that date of birth of petitioner considered as 02.01.1966 for retirement is based on Proforma Bio-data submitted by petitioner at the time of his initial appointment on 01.01.1991. In view of the Bio- data submitted by petitioner mentioning the date of birth of petitioner as 02.01.1966, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that date of birth of petitioner is 02.11.1969, is not sustainable, therefore, no relief as prayed for can be granted to petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for respective parties, on the last date of hearing, that at one place, the date of birth of petitioner is mentioned as 02.01.1964, the documents relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner mentions date of birth of petitioner as 02.11.1969 and one of the document submitted by respondents along with reply, which is Proforma Bio-data mentioning the date of birth of petitioner as 02.01.1966, this Court find it appropriate to call for the original register maintained by the respondents of the employees. 6. 6. Respondents have submitted photocopies obtained from the original register along with application for taking additional documents on record and have also produced the original register for perusal of this Court today. Perusal of the original register at Page No.283 would show that it is details and description of the petitioner. In column No.10 of the date of birth, it is mentioned as 02.01.1964. It bears the 5 signature of petitioner at the place of mentioning of the date month etc. and also in the bottom of the said entries from which it is apparent that petitioner has put his signature on three places in the documents acknowledging the entries made under his signature. Petitioner has filed copy of very document, which is forming part of 283 of the register at Page No.32 of the writ petition. From perusal of the said documents, it can be ascertained from bare perusal of two documents that documents filed along with petition at Page No.32 is not to be the photocopy of the original document as is forming part in register maintained by the respondent-department. I say so for more than one reason. In the documents enclosed along with writ petition as also the handwriting is different than what is appearing in the original register maintained by the respondents department. The register bears two more signatures in column No.10 of the register certifying the date by petitioner himself, however, in the photocopy enclosed along writ petition does not mention that signature. The signature which is appearing in the original register of the Depot Incharge of respondents department in the bottom of the page with seal also appears to be differently put in the photocopy of the documents filed by petitioner along with writ petition and similarly the signature of the authorized officer on the right hand side with seal is differently appearing than what is mentioned in the original register. From comparison of both the documents it appears that that petitioner is relying upon concocted documents. 7. Entries made in original register produced before this Court is of 29.07.1995. The year which is appearing in the column No.10 of the said document mentioning the year of birth of petitioner is also 6 differently handwritten. The other declaration form which is placed on record by petitioner at Page No.33 maintained by the respondents- department under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 also appears to be concocted one for the same reason as observed by this Court with regard to the register maintained by the petitioner under the Contributory Provident Fund Regulation, 1967. 8. From the aforementioned facts and the comparison made by this Court of the documents placed along with writ petition at Page No.32 and 33, which has been placed stating that these documents are maintained by respondents department and upon comparison with original register, this Court is of the view that both the documents are concocted by petitioner, therefore, other submission made by learned counsel for petitioner cannot be further considered. 9. For the foregoing discussions this writ petition is dismissed on the ground that petitioner has placed before this Court concocted documents in support of his contention. This Court could have also taken action against petitioner-employee, however, looking to the nature of employment that he is low cadre employee, this Court is refraining from taking any action against petitioner. 10. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is being dismissed. 11. The original register placed before this Court is returned back to the learned counsel for respondents. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram