Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Rajaram vs M/O Railways on 29 August, 2025
1 OA No. 256/2017 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 256/2017 Order reserved on: 22.08.2025 Date of order: 29.08.2025 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A) Rajaram S/o Shri Bhoriya, by caste Gurjar, aged about 55 years, R/o BadhGuwadi, Tehsil Gangapurcity District Sawaimadhopur, at present working on the post of Gangman, at Railway Station Kapren, West Central Railway Kota.
...Applicant (By Advocate: Shri R.D. Meena) Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP).
2. Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Kota.
...Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Arun Sharma) 2 OA No. 256/2017 Order The present Application had been filed by the Applicant upon being aggrieved by the non-correction of his date of birth in his service record, in pursuance of his representation dated 20.01.2017 along with supporting documents.
2. Based on the pleadings of the parties on record, the relevant matrix of facts had emerged as follows briefly. The Applicant was initially appointed as Gangman on 25.02.1985 in the Respondent department - Railway. At the time of appointment, since the petitioner was uneducated, he had purportedly submitted an affidavit in support of his date of birth, which was claimed to be 16.01.1962. The same had also shown up in the monthly pay slips for him, but was later changed to 09.05.1997. Upon information being sought by the Applicant, it had been informed vide letter dated 28.12.2016 that no affidavit was available on record and the date of birth entered in his service record/service book at the time of his appointment was 09.05.1957. The Applicant had then submitted a representation dated 20.01.2017 along with supporting documents (Aadhar Card, PAN Card) seeking correction in his date of birth to 16.01.1962 but the same had not been considered. During the pendency of the present O.A., the Applicant had been retired from service in May-2017.
3. Being aggrieved thus, the Applicant had preferred the present O.A., seeking the substantive reliefs inter alia - for directions to the Respondents to correct the date of birth in his service record as 16.01.1962 in place of 09.05.1957 ; and for directions that the Respondents continue the Applicant in service till attaining the age of superannuation by considering his date of birth 16.01.1962 with all consequential benefits. 3 OA No. 256/2017
4. It was the case of the Applicant that he had been deprived of remaining in service till January 2002 - based on his date of birth, purportedly 16.01.1962 ; as well as also deprived of the consequential benefits.
In support of the same, the learned Counsel for the Applicant had vide written submissions cited the provisions of the Indian Railways Establishment Code (I.R.E.C.) and other related decisions, inter alia - that as per Section 225(4)(ii) of the I.R.E.C., a General Manager, upon being satisfied that a clerical error has occurred, can alter the date of birth of Group-C and Group-D railway servants in case of illiterate staff ; that as per Clause-(c) of Railway Ministry's decision below the said Section, it was mentioned that in case of Group-D employees, care should be taken to see that the date of birth as declared on entering regular Group-D service is not different from any declaration expressed or implied, given earlier at the time of employment as casual labourer or as substitute ; that as per clause (b) of Railway Ministry's decision, a candidate has to produce documentary evidence regarding the date of birth and if he cannot produce such document, he has to produce an affidavit in support of the declaration of age ; and that, the Note below the Railway Ministry's Decision, states "the source/basis on which the date of birth has been recorded in the service records of the employee at the time of entering service may be recorded below the date of birth recorded." However, no such source was mentioned below the date of birth in the Applicant's Service Record/Service Book. It was thereby claimed that since the first page of Applicant's Service Record/Service Book showed that the Applicant was illiterate, so the affidavit produced by him with respect to his age had to be relied upon ; and therefore, the correct date of his birth had to be deemed to be 16.01.1962.
4OA No. 256/2017
5. Vide their Reply, the Respondents had not disputed the contents of the O.A. to the extent of those being matters of record. However, the rest of the contents of the O.A. had been denied/contested. It had been averred that the date of birth of the Applicant had been mentioned in the service record as 09.05.1957 as per the mention made by the Applicant at the time of entering into the service. However, he had represented for correction in his date of birth to 16.01.1962 at the verge of his retirement, which itself had been recorded in his service book to be 31.05.2017.
The Respondents had also specifically produced the copy of the Service Book/Service Record of the Applicant that the authentic date of birth of the Applicant's was 09.05.1957 - recorded both in numerals as well as words. It was also denied that the Applicant had provided any affidavit to be placed on the service record at the time of his entry into service ; and no such record/mention was found in the Service Book or any other Service Record. The mention of the date of birth of the Applicant as 16.01.1962 in the Pay Slips was attributed to a possible inadvertent mistake on the part of the Date Entry Operator ; and it was averred that the same cannot be taken as the basis of altering his authentic date of birth in the Applicant's Service Record - which was 09.05.1957, recorded both in numerals as well as words. Moreover, the date of birth mentioned in Aadhaar Card or PAN Card cannot be taken as an authentic proof of the date of birth as claimed by the Applicant - since the same is entered as per the declaration of those card holders. Moreover, the date of birth of the Applicant cannot be changed from that mentioned in the service book at the verge of the retirement.
6. The pleadings of the parties in the case and the related guidelines were perused. It had been found that the provisions of 5 OA No. 256/2017 the Indian Railways Establishment Code (I.R.E.C.) and other related decisions therein were in the nature of citations/assertions inter alia - the power of a General Manager to alter the date of birth of Group-C and Group-D railway servants in case of illiterate staff, upon being satisfied that a clerical error has occurred, can ; the necessity in case of Group-D employees to ensure that the date of birth as declared on entering regular Group-D service is not different from any declaration expressed or implied, given earlier at the time of employment as casual labourer or as substitute ; the admissibility of an affidavit in support of the declaration of age in certain cases ; and the provision for the source/basis on which the date of birth has been recorded in the service records of the employee at the time of entering service to be recorded below the date of birth recorded.
However, from the records in the present case, the fulfilment of those conditions - viz. the satisfaction of the General Manager that a clerical error had happened while recording the date of birth of the Applicant ; whether the Applicant had entered Group- D from a previous employment as casual labour or substitute and what was his date of birth recorded at that time ; the copy of affidavit furnished, if any, in support of the date of birth of the Applicant ; and the source of entry of date of birth in the Applicant's Service Record/Service Book - none were found to be available. Per contra, the Respondents had produced the copy of the Service Book/Service Record of the Applicant showing the date of birth of the Applicant's was 09.05.1957 - recorded both in numerals as well as words. It was also denied that the Applicant had provided any affidavit to be placed on the service record at the time of his entry into service ; and no such record/mention was found in the Service Book or any other Service Record. It was thus found that the claim of the Applicant for his date of birth to be corrected to 16.01.1962 was not substantiated by any 6 OA No. 256/2017 record in any way ; whereas the Applicant's Service Record/Service Book showed his date of birth recorded at the time of entry into service to be 09.05.1957.
7. At the stage of arguments, the learned counsels for the parties sought to support their respective contentions by relying upon relevant Judgments & Orders of Hon'ble higher Courts. The learned Counsel for the Applicants had sought to rely upon the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2014 in Civil Appeal No.4558 in the case of Ishwarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Anr. [(2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 434], which was taken on record. On perusal of the same, it had been found that in that case, the Applicant had furnished the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation as another relevant/admissible evidence for his date of birth. But the same had been ignored by the Respondents and the Applicant was retired from service by relying upon date of birth recorded in his school leaving certificate, without giving him an opportunity of defence. Moreover, in the related dispute, the concerned Labour Court had gone through the evidence on record and given specific reasons for the date of birth of the Applicant as recorded in the school leaving service as erroneous - inter alia as the date of birth so recorded was only five months from the date of birth of his elder brother ; and that change of date of birth had been allowed to other employees even on the basis of their affidavits - and had awarded the reckoning of his date of birth as per municipal records, with consequential benefits. However, the award of the Labour Court had been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. On the same being challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4558, the appeal had been allowed vide the Judgment & Order dated 16.04.2014 (supra) by setting aside the impugned Judgment and 7 OA No. 256/2017 Order of the Hon'ble High Court ; and restoring the award of the Labour Court - by inter alia holding that -
"... 15. We find the judgment and award of the Labour Court well reasoned and based on facts and evidence on record. The High Court has erred in its exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to annul the findings of the Labour Court in its award as it is well settled law that the High Court cannot exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution as an appellate court or reappreciate evidence and record its findings on the contentious points. Only if there is a serious error of law or findings recorded suffer from error apparent on record, can the High Court quash the order of a lower court. The Labour Court in the present case has satisfactorily exercised its original jurisdiction and properly appreciated the facts and legal evidence on record and given a well reasoned order and answered the points of dispute in favour of the appellant. The High Court had no reason to interefere with the same as the award of the Labour Court was based on sound and cogent reasoning, which has served the ends of justice."
8. From the foregoing, it was found that the aforesaid authority sought to be relied upon had considered firstly the issue that in the event there was a dispute in the date of birth between the birth certificate issued by the competent authority and the school leaving certificate, which document would prevail ; and secondly, whether the Hon'ble High Court was correct in passing an Order setting aside the Order and award of the Labour Court. This was not at all the context in the present case, where no record - either the birth certificate or the school leaving certificate or even any affidavit from the Applicant had been found on record ; and the case was also was not one where a finding based on evidence had already been recorded by the appropriate Court/Tribunal. Hence, the citation of the said authority vide the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2014 in Civil Appeal 8 OA No. 256/2017 No.4558 [(2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 434] (supra) was not found to help the case of the Applicant.
9. The learned Counsel for the Respondents had sought to rely upon a bunch of recent Judgments and Orders, which were taken on record and perused, viz. - that dated 17.02.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.14238/2022 (The General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited. & Ors. Vs. Avinash Kumar Tiwari) [2023 Live Law (SC) 124] ; that dated 08.07.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in WP No.17976/2024 (Rajan Singh Chauhan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.] ; that dated 20.06.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in WP No.41332/2025 (Sankarappa Vs. APSPDCL Chairman MD Tirupati & Ors.) ; that dated 03.07.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong in WP(C) No.46/2025 (Smt. MartinewbellSuchiang Vs. The State of Meghalaya & Ors.) - whereby also the question as to whether an employee can be permitted to challenge his date of birth at the fag end of his/her service had been considered ; and it had been decided that the requests for alteration of date of birth cannot be made after a long delay and especially towards the end of the career of an employee.
The learned Counsel for the Respondents had also drawn attention to the fact that most of these Judgments and Orders had been passed despite availability of admissible documents in support of the claimed date of birth by the respective employee ; and had yet been decided against the respective employee. Specific attention had been drawn to Judgment and Order dated 20.06.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in WP No.41332/2025 (Sankarappa Vs. APSPDCL Chairman MD Tirupati & Ors.) cited supra, wherein it had been 9 OA No. 256/2017 held in the context of absence of basic record and allegation of malafide etc. that -
"... 24. Petitioner at the fag end of his career when his superannuation was approaching, preferred representations to the respondent authorities, by simply blaming the respondents as if his Date of Birth had been changed. But, the petitioner is not able to substantiate his assertion regarding the alleged alteration of the entry of the Date of Birth in the Service Record. In the absence of the prerequisite foundation facts regarding his case, it is not apt for this Court to go into an arena which is purely a disputed question of fact, ... ...
......
29. In respect of the alleged alteration of the Date of Birth entry in the relevant records, the petitioner has taken a plea of malafide,. However, the mere usage of such an expression is not sufficient unless it is supported by a substantial foundation of facts. It is also well settled that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of malafides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demand proof of a high order of credibility."
The learned Counsel for the Respondents had further sought to rely on the Order dated 27.05.2016 of the Hon'ble Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in the O.A. No.258/2016 (Parsa Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors.), whereby while dismissing the OA as being devoid of merit, it had been concluded inter alia that -
"... ... 9. In all citations, it has been held that Courts should be extremely careful when applications for alteration of date of birth is filed on the eve of superannuation or near about that time and lastly, it has been held in the case of Home Deptt. V. R. Kirubakaran (SCC pp.158-159, para-7) that :
"the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or 10 OA No. 256/2017 order, the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book"
10. On going through all the facts and record carefully, we find that both sides have shown sufficient proof of the respective, but contrary, stands taken by them. The applicant has given pay slips, school certificate etc. in support of his contention that his date of birth is 1.7.1960. On the other hand, the respondents have relied on service book entries and quoted statutory provisions, which entail stipulated time limit to contest the incorrect entry in service record as three years only. Both sides have relied upon citations of different courts and a catena of judgment pronounced from time to time. Ultimately, we are left with no option but to follow the law on the subject, which, in this case, is in the favour of the respondents. Going by the spirit of Rule-225 of the IREC Vol.I, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
11. The Courts are to administer the law as they find it, however inconvenient it may be. A court has no power to ignore a statutory provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The same is the case here. We are bound by the provisions of Rule-225 of the IREC Vol.I. A statute must of course be given effect to whether one likes it or not as it is said dura lex, sed lex (law is hard, but it is the law).
10. In the conspectus of the foregoing, it is found from the Service Book/Service Record that the Date of Birth of the Applicant was recorded as 09.07.1957. Moreover, while the Applicant had claimed for the same to be treated as 16.01.1962, citing essentially the statutory provisions and executive decisions that enable alteration of the same, but no document or affidavit was produced on behalf of the Applicant to support his claim. From the authority of Judgments and Orders produced by the parties, it was also clear that the relevant aspects of the law settled in this regard were, inter alias - that it would not be apt to enter into the dispute in the absence of the prerequisite basic 11 OA No. 256/2017 facts regarding the Applicant's case ; that Courts/Tribunals should be extremely careful when applications for alteration of date of birth is filed on the verge of superannuation or near about that time ; that the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his Service Book/Service Record; and that the Courts/Tribunals are to administer the law as they find it, however inconvenient - and had no power to ignore a statutory provision to relieve what it considered a distress resulting from its operation.
11. Therefore, no illegality was found in the impugned action of deeming the date of birth of the Applicant as 09.07.1957 and related actions of the Respondents. Accordingly, no interference was called for in the matter.
12. The present O.A. fails being devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) Member (A) /ysm/