2026:JHHC:24586-DB 1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 456 of 2026 Subhash Shaw, S/o Ghuja Shaw, R/o 4 Number East Basuria, near Football Ground, P.O. & P.S.-Bhuli, District-Dhanbad ….. Appellant Versus 1. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Dhanbad 2. General Manager (P&IR), M/S BCCL, Dhanbad 3. General Manager, Kusunda Area, M/S BCCL Dhanbad 4. Project Officer, Kusunda Area, M/S BCCL, Dhanbad ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate ----- 02/17.08.2026 1. Heard Mr Shekhar Prasad Sinha for the appellant and Mr Ankit Vishal for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 08.06.2026 dismissing the appellant’s W.P.(S) No. 2963 of 2023 for correction of his date of birth in the service records. 3. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the application for correction of date of birth was made when the appellant had almost nine years of service left. As such, it cannot be said that such application was made at the fag- end of the appellant’s service. 4. Mr Shekhar Prasad Sinha further submits that the matriculation certificate in which the appellant’s correct date of birth is reflected was already on record and even cognisance had been taken of the said certificate. Thus, it was the duty of the respondents to have suo motu corrected the appellant’s date of birth. 5. Finally, he submits that the appellant’s application for change of date of birth made on 24.02.2017 has not yet been disposed of by 2026:JHHC:24586-DB 2 | P a g e the respondents. As such, at least some directions should be issued to the respondents to dispose of this application. 6. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha relied on the decision rendered in the case of Surendra Nath Singh vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others reported in 2024 JBCJ 668 to support his case. 7. Mr. Ankit Vishal defended the impugned order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He pointed out that the application/representation for correction of date of birth was made 25 years after the appellant entered in service. There is no explanation for this inordinate delay, and therefore, there is no question of correcting date of birth at such a belated stage. He relied on the decision rendered in the case of Uma Ram vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others in L.P.A. No. 81 of 2025 on 22.08.2025. 8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 9. In this case, the appellant entered into service on 30.05.1992. It is only after 25 years, i.e., vide application/representation dated 24.02.2017, that the appellant applied for change of his date of birth or, as the learned counsel for the appellant would say, correction in date of birth entered in the service records. 10. Neither in the writ petition nor in the appeal memo is there any cogent explanation for this unreasonable delay of 25 years. Even if we were to accept learned counsel’s contention that the application was not made at the fag-end of service because the appellant had nine more years of service left, that still cannot answer the charge of inordinate delay and laches. 11. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stating that belated requests for correction or change of date of birth should not be 2026:JHHC:24586-DB 3 | P a g e entertained have to be read and construed holistically. Many of the decisions, no doubt, referred to such applications for correction/change being made at the fag-end of the service. Still, from the context, it is clear that the ratio of the said decisions is that applications made after inordinate and unexplained delay for change or correction of date of birth should not be entertained. 12. The facts in Surendra Nath Singh (supra) were entirely different and offer no comparison to the facts in the present case. Besides, in Uma Ram (supra), this Court held that any application for correction of date of birth after a delay of more than two decades would attract the doctrine of laches. 13. In the case of Uma Ram (supra), this Court has referred to two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject, and the ratio of all such decisions militates against the grant of any relief to the appellant herein. 14. The submission that the matriculation certificate was already available with the respondents cannot be accepted at face value. In any event, the matriculation certificate was relied upon as proof of the appellant being a matriculate and nothing further. Therefore, based on this alleged circumstance, the charge of inordinate delay and laches cannot be wished away. The respondents have no obligation to consider an application for change or correction of the date of birth once such application/representation was made almost 25 years after entering in service. 15. The request that we direct the respondents to dispose of the appellant’s application/representation does not appear entirely innocuous. If we accede to such a prayer, there is no doubt that the appellant will claim a fresh cause of action and again raise challenges, with respect, which are untenable. 2026:JHHC:24586-DB 4 | P a g e 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned against High Courts issuing directions for disposal of belated representations, as invariably, a fresh cause of action is claimed based on the outcome of such disposals. 17. There is no error in the learned Single Judge’s impugned order declining relief to the appellant on the ground of inordinate delay and laches spanning over two and a half decades, in the least. 18. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without any order for costs. (M. S. SONAK, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) 17.08.2026 Sandeep/Vikas/ Uploaded on 20.08.2026