Coal India Ltd. And Another v. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent passed his matriculation examination in 1957 in what is now Bangladesh and joined the services of Coal India Limited in July the same year. Upon entry, he furnished a matriculation certificate showing his date of birth as 31-12-1938. In 1995—nearly thirty-eight years later—he procured a duplicate matriculation certificate from Bangladesh indicating a revised date of birth, 26-01-1943, and requested Coal India Limited to substitute this date in its records. The company refused, citing internal rules that fixed the date declared at entry and required any correction to be sought within five years of joining.

The respondent successfully petitioned a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court; the Division Bench upheld that decision on 06-04-2004, directing the company to change his date of birth. Coal India Limited appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave, resulting in the present order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether an employee can seek alteration of his recorded date of birth several decades after joining service, particularly at the verge of superannuation.

Whether the Calcutta High Court erred in exercising writ jurisdiction to order such a change based on a duplicate matriculation certificate issued in 1995.

Whether Coal India Limited’s rules—requiring corrections to be sought within five years of entry—bar the respondent’s claim, despite those rules being formally promulgated in 1992.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Coal India Limited)

The only valid date of birth is the one declared when the respondent entered service, supported by the original matriculation certificate (31-12-1938).

Company rules stipulate that any request to alter the date of birth must be made within five years of joining; the respondent’s 1995 request is time-barred.

An employee cannot seek a change at the “fag end” of his career; permitting this undermines administrative certainty.

Respondent

The five-year limitation in the company’s rules became effective only in 1992 and should not apply retrospectively to him.

The duplicate matriculation certificate issued by the Bangladesh education board, showing 26-01-1943, represents the correct date, the earlier entry having been a paternal mistake.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court emphasized that employees are generally barred from seeking alterations of their recorded date of birth at a late stage of service, a principle described as “well settled.” The Court found no reliable explanation for how or why the Bangladesh education authorities modified the respondent’s certificate after thirty-eight years. Because the question of the respondent’s true birth date is factual and disputed, the High Court should not have exercised writ jurisdiction to resolve it. The Court accepted Coal India Limited’s stance that administrative rules prioritize the date recorded at entry, and that any correction must be timely. Consequently, the High Court’s order compelling the company to alter its records was held to be erroneous.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed; High Court order set aside.

The respondent’s service records will continue to reflect 31-12-1938 as his date of birth. While the Court declined to recover the salary and allowances paid during the additional period he worked under court orders, it directed that all further service and post-retirement benefits must be computed as if he had retired on the basis of the original date. No broader legal precedent was created beyond reaffirming the principle that late-stage corrections to an employee’s date of birth are disfavoured.

Coal India Ltd. And Another v. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee And Others

Order

1. We have heard counsel for the parties.

2. Special leave granted.

3. The appellant Coal India Limited has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta dated 6-4-2004 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant herein against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was dismissed. As a consequence the appellant was directed to change the date of birth of the respondent in their record from 31-12-1938 to 26-1-1943. This was done in the year 1995 when in normal course on the basis of date of birth declared by the respondent earlier he would have retired in December 1996.

4. The facts of the case not in dispute are that the respondent passed his matriculation examination in the year 1957 while studying in what is now Bangladesh. Later on he shifted to Calcutta and did his graduation from Calcutta. He joined the service of the appellant in July 1957. It appears from the record that at the time of joining the service he submitted his matriculation certificate in proof of date of birth and the said certificate showed his date of birth to be 31-12-1938.

5. In the year 1995, the respondent obtained a duplicate matriculation certificate declaring his date of birth as 26-1-1943. He applied to the appellant to change the date of birth recorded in its record. According to the respondent there was some mistake committed by his father while declaring the date of birth and therefore, it had become necessary to get the date of birth corrected. The case of the appellant is that he was in correspondence with the authorities at Dhaka for change of date of birth. From the material placed on record it is seen that till 1969, some correspondence was exchanged though it is not clear as to what was the mistake committed by the father of the respondent, nor could counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent tell us as to exactly what was the mistake committed by his father. However, after 1969 there appears to be no exchange of correspondence. In the year 1995, the respondent went to Bangladesh and only thereafter, a duplicate matriculation certificate giving his changed date of birth was issued.

6. The appellant Coal India Limited did not agree to change the date of birth, because according to the relevant rules of the Company the date of birth to be recorded is the one declared at the time of entering into service, and in the instant case it was based on the matriculation certificate furnished by the respondent himself. Moreover, it is their case that if correction of the date of birth was to be made, the respondent should have applied for such correction within five years of his joining service, and not thereafter.

7. Counsel for the respondent contended that the aforesaid rule prescribing a time-limit for changing the date of birth came into force only in the year 1992 for the first time and therefore, not applicable to the respondent. Assuming it to be so, it cannot be disputed that while entering service the respondent declared his date of birth as 31-12-1938 based on the matriculation certificate furnished by him.

8. Thereafter, in the year 1995 he applied to the Company to change the date of birth on the basis of duplicate matriculation certificate obtained by him. It is well settled that an employee will not be permitted to apply for change of date of birth at the fag end of his service career. In the instant case we do not know on what basis after 38 years the Secondary Education Board in Bangladesh corrected the matriculation certificate. This is essentially a question of fact, and in any case the High Court ought not to have exercised its writ jurisdiction to determine the real date of birth. We are of the view that the High Court was in error in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and directing Coal India Limited, the appellant herein, to change the date of birth of the respondent from 31-12-1938 to 26-1-1943. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the High Court of Calcutta.

9. It is, however, stated that during this period the respondent has worked as an employee of the appellant Company and has superannuated from service on attaining the requisite age on the basis of the duplicate matriculation certificate. He has been paid his salary and allowances in accordance with the Rules. It would be harsh to direct the respondent to refund the pay and allowances paid to him during this period, particularly when he has actually worked pursuant to orders of the Court. However, we direct that for service benefits including post-retirement benefits, the service rendered by the respondent shall be reckoned on the basis of the certificate originally submitted by him disclosing his date of birth as 31-12-1938. His date of retirement shall be determined on the basis of the aforesaid date of birth. For the additional service rendered by the respondent, after such retirement, apart from pay and allowances already paid to him, no other service benefit shall be given to him.

10. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

Civil Appeal No. 2376 of 2005, decided on April 4, 2005

Coal India Ltd. And Another v. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Coal India Limited)

Respondent

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Coal India Ltd. And Another v. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee And Others

Comments