2026:JHHC:3298 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 391 of 2024 ----- Hari Prasad Mahto, S/o late -Sabur Mahto, at -Bhuiyan Pahar Pur, P.O Rajganj, P.S.- Rajganjh, District-Dhanbad ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman- Cum- Managing Director, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O- Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad 2. Director (Personnel) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O- Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad. 3. General Manager (P)/IR, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O- Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District— Dhanbad 4. General Manager, Sijua Area (Area V) of M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd At Tetulmari, P.O.-Tetulmari, P.S.- Tetulmari, District-Dhanbad. 5. Project Officer, Tetulmari Colliery under Sijua Area of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd At-Tetulmari, P.O.-Tetulmari, P.S.-Tetulmari, District- Dhanbad. 6. Personal Manager, Tetulmari Colliery, under Sijua Area of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited At- Tetulmari, P.O. .-Tetulmari, P.S.- Tetulmari, District- Dhanbad …Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uday Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Alpana Verma, Advocate …...... 10/ 05.02.2026: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 6/9.07.2023 (Annexure-9(i)) and 27/30.07.2023 (Annexure-9 (ii) ) whereby and where under, petitioner's case of correction of his date of birth in his service records from 7/2/1966 to 21/2/1974; on the basis of his matriculation certificate has been declined. 2026:JHHC:3298 2 b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /Order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents' to correct petitioner's date of birth from 07/02/1966 to 21/2/1974 as per his matriculation certificate, in his service records. 3. The petitioner has been working as a fitter in Tetulmari Colliery under Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL) since March 1991. Before appointment, the petitioner was medically examined, and the Medical Board assessed his age as 25 years on 07.02.1991, recording his date of birth as 07.02.1966. However, the Medical Board ignored the petitioner’s matriculation and school certificates, which showed his correct date of birth as 21.02.1974. At the time of appointment, the petitioner submitted his School Leaving Certificate and matriculation documents which were sent by BCCL to the concerned school for verification. Despite this, BCCL entered the date of birth as 07.02.1966 in the petitioner’s service book. After discovering about the recording of incorrect date of birth, the petitioner repeatedly represented for correction based on his matriculation certificate vide representation dated 13.10.2022, 27.12.2022, 14.01.2023, 23.03.2023 and 08.05.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s matriculation certificate existed before employment and the same was verified, which is legally conclusive proof of date of birth. Medical opinion cannot override matriculation records. As a result of BCCL’s failure to record his correct date of birth, despite having valid documents, the petitioner has suffered injustice and loss. He submits that respondent has acted illegally and arbitrarily in recording the petitioner’s date of birth as 07.02.1966 solely on the basis of medical opinion. The petitioner has passed matriculation in the year 1990, prior to his appointment in 1991 and have produced his matriculation and school records which consistently records his date of birth as 21.02.1974 and the said certificates were furnished at the time of appointment, were forwarded by the respondents for 2026:JHHC:3298 3 verification. He also submits that the respondents failed to enter the petitioner’s matriculation qualification and correct date of birth in the service book. The date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate is conclusive and cannot be altered, a position authoritatively settled by the Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Kamta Pandey v. BCCL and others, reported in (2007 (3) JLJR 726), and therefore the impugned rejection is arbitrary and contrary to law. 5. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the educational certificates can be accepted for age verification only if they were issued before the date of appointment. In this case, the certificates submitted by the employee appear to have been issued after his appointment and therefore do not meet the requirement. She further submits that the employee signed his service book and Form- B on 23.09.2005 and 07.05.2009, thereby accepting his date of birth as 07.02.1966. Further, no educational qualification is recorded in his service file, and by signing the service book, the employee accepted the service records. The employee raised the dispute regarding his date of birth at the fag end of his long service, and since he is due to retire on 28.02.2026 as per company records, correction of date of birth at this late stage is not justified. 6. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the date of birth has consistently remained part of the petitioner’s service records for more than three decades. The petitioner admittedly has acknowledged and accepted the date of birth recorded in service records. Having consciously accepted the service records without protest for a considerable period of time, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to turn around and dispute the same at the fag end of his service. There is inordinate and unexplained delay in claiming for correction of date of birth when 2026:JHHC:3298 4 the petitioner retiring on 28.02.2026. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 in paragraph 10 has held as under- 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.” Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. United Mines Mazdoor Union, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 491 has held that where an employee secured appointment on the basis of an initial declaration of age, he cannot subsequently seek 2026:JHHC:3298 5 correction of date of birth, if such correction would invalidate his eligibility at the time of appointment. It has been held under paragraph 21:- 21. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the much-delayed disclosure of the date of birth as 12.03.1955 by the respondent no. 3, coupled with his initial declaration and the admitted position that based on such initial declaration, he had received employment, as otherwise based on 12.03.1955, he could not have been legally appointed due to being under-age, there is no manner of doubt that the respondent no. 3, irrespective of his real date of birth, for the purpose of employment under the appellant, cannot be allowed the purported rectification/correction of date of birth to 12.03.1955. He would have to, necessarily, be content with his service and benefits accounted taking his date of birth as 27.12.1948. 7. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, I am not inclined to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in this case where the petitioner has raised his dispute in the year 2024 when he is about to retire on February, 2026 when he himself has acknowledged his date of birth by putting his signature in the Form-B in 2006 itself and kept quite thereafter. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 05th February, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 16 /02/2026