Case Background
The case arose from a dispute about the date of birth recorded in the service book of a government employee working under the Health Department in Bihar.
The employee entered service with the respondents on 23.07.1987. At that time, his service book was opened and his date of birth was entered as 03.01.1959. This entry remained in force for more than three decades of his employment.
The employee later claimed that this entry was wrong. According to him, his correct date of birth should have been 23.07.1964, which he said was as per the age assessed by a Medical Board. On this basis, he asserted that he should be allowed to continue in service up to 31.07.2024 instead of being retired earlier.
The department, however, proceeded on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service book. Vide memo no. 1276 dated 08.02.2018, the competent authority issued a notice informing him that his date of superannuation would be 31.01.2019. This meant that, as per the service book entry of 03.01.1959, he would retire in January 2019.
Only after receiving this notice of superannuation did the employee approach the High Court. On 15.12.2018, he filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 24406 of 2018, seeking a direction to correct the date of birth in his service book and to restrain the authorities from retiring him on 31.01.2019.
The learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 24.03.2021. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of delay, holding that the employee had challenged the entry in his service book after 30 years of service and only when his retirement was imminent.
Aggrieved by this dismissal, the employee filed a Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No. 537 of 2021) before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court. This appeal led to the present judgment dated 21.02.2022.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah, examined whether the Single Judge was right in refusing to correct the date of birth at such a late stage of the employee’s service.
First, the Court noted the basic facts that were not in dispute. The appellant had joined service on 23.07.1987. At that time, his service book was opened and his date of birth was recorded as 03.01.1959. This record stood unchallenged for over three decades.
The appellant’s counsel argued vehemently in support of the appeal. While the detailed submissions are not reproduced in the judgment, the core grievance was that the date of birth in the service book did not match the date claimed by the appellant, namely 23.07.1964, which he said reflected his age as assessed by a Medical Board. Based on this, he wanted the service book entry corrected and the retirement date extended accordingly.
However, the Division Bench recorded that even the appellant’s counsel did not dispute one critical fact: the request for correction of date of birth was made only after more than 30 years of service, and only after the appellant received notice of his impending superannuation with effect from 31.01.2019.
The Bench then revisited the reasoning of the Single Judge. The operative part of the Single Judge’s order, as reproduced by the Division Bench, pointed out that the writ application was filed on 15.12.2018, almost at the fag end of the employee’s service, after he had received the memo about his retirement date. The Single Judge had held that in view of this long delay—waiting until after 30 years of service to raise the issue—the Court was not inclined to grant any indulgence.
The Division Bench agreed with this approach. It stressed that the legal position on such belated claims is well settled. An employee cannot seek correction of the date of birth at the fag end of his service, especially after allowing the recorded date to govern his service conditions for decades.
To support this conclusion, the Court referred to two important Supreme Court decisions:
First, the Court cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others v. Shyam Kishore Singh, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411. Although the Patna High Court judgment does not quote passages from the Supreme Court decision, it cites this case to underline that courts have repeatedly discouraged attempts by employees to seek date of birth corrections near retirement.
Second, the Court referred to another Supreme Court decision reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 767, Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Natraja and others. This judgment, too, reinforces the principle that corrections to date of birth must be sought promptly and not when an employee is about to retire.
By invoking these authorities, the Division Bench confirmed that the law does not favor employees who sleep over their rights and then come to court at the last minute when retirement approaches.
The Court also considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The service book entry had been made at the time of joining service in 1987. The appellant did not challenge this entry for over 30 years. He accepted the benefits of service, promotions, and seniority on the basis of that record.
Only after the issuance of memo no. 1276 dated 08.02.2018, informing him that he would retire on 31.01.2019, did he move the High Court. The Division Bench saw this as a clear instance of delay and laches.
In such circumstances, the Court held that there was no infirmity in the Single Judge’s decision. The appeal was therefore dismissed, meaning that the earlier order stood confirmed and the appellant could not get the date of birth corrected or the retirement date extended.
In simple terms, the Patna High Court concluded that an employee must challenge any wrong entry in the service book at the earliest opportunity. Waiting until the very end of service, after receiving a retirement notice, is too late. Courts will generally not interfere at such a stage, because it can disturb settled service records and create administrative difficulties.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for government employees and their families across Bihar and beyond. It sends a clear message: if you believe that your date of birth or other key service details are wrong in the official record, you must raise the issue early in your career.
By upholding the dismissal of the writ petition, the Patna High Court has reinforced the principle that last-minute attempts to change dates of birth will not be entertained, especially when the employee has waited for decades and only acts after a retirement notice is issued.
This protects the government and public institutions from sudden claims that can disturb service rosters, promotions, pension calculations, and budget planning. It also promotes fairness to other employees, who may be affected if one person’s service period is unexpectedly extended.
For ordinary readers, the takeaway is simple: regularly check your service book and other official records. If there is a mistake, approach the department and, if needed, the court without delay. Otherwise, you may lose the chance to correct it later.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a government employee seek correction of his recorded date of birth in the service book after more than 30 years of service, when he is on the verge of retirement?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that it is well settled that an employee cannot seek correction of date of birth at the fag end of service. Since the appellant approached the Court only after receiving the retirement notice and after over 30 years of service, his claim was rejected. - Issue: Was there any legal infirmity in the Single Judge’s decision dismissing the writ petition as belated?
Answer: No. The Division Bench found no infirmity in the order dated 24.03.2021 in C.W.J.C. No. 24406 of 2018 and therefore dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411.
- Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Natraja and others, (2021) SCC Online SC 767.
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 537 of 2021 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 24406 of 2018
Case Title: Akhilesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 772
Date of Judgment: 21.02.2022
Advocates: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG 9 for the respondents; Mr. Nagendra Kumar, AC to AAG 9 for the respondents
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of writ petition seeking correction of date of birth in service records
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
