The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) ruled that in service jurisprudence, the date of birth recorded in official service records is presumed to be correct and cannot be challenged after retirement, especially after an inordinate delay. The Court pointed out that allowing such challenges post-retirement leads to administrative uncertainty.
The High Court clarified that the documents like Aadhaar Cards and Voter ID Cards are not conclusive proof of date of birth in service matters. They are prepared for identification purposes based on self-declaration and cannot override official service records maintained by an employer.
The Court therefore directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Sahayika, and the benefit with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, including notional seniority and monetary benefits, as may be admissible in accordance with law shall be extended to her.
The Court also directed the respondents/Appropriate Authorities to recover the entire amount from respondent No.5 paid towards salary and other monetary benefits with 6% interest per annum, for which she was not legally entitled after her superannuation, and to deposit the said amount with the State exchequer within a period of 60 days.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed that an administrative or quasi-judicial order that entails civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem. An order passed without hearing a necessary and affected party is void.
The Bench noted that the petitioner was directly affected by the appellate order, as it led to the termination of her services. However, she was not impleaded as a party to the appeal nor given an opportunity to be heard. The Bench observed that this was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), rendering the order void.
The Bench found that Respondent No. 5 challenged her date of birth nearly two years after her retirement. It observed that the doctrine of delay and laches is fatal in the service jurisprudence, and an employee cannot be permitted to challenge their service record after it has attained finality upon retirement.
Briefly, the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Sahayika, for which the vacancy arose due to the superannuation of Respondent No. 5, based on her official service record which stated her date of birth as March 05, 1955. Nearly two years after her retirement, Respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, claiming her date of birth was incorrectly recorded and was actually January 01, 1964. This claim was based solely on her Aadhaar Card and Voter ID Card.
The Additional Collector allowed the appeal without hearing the petitioner. Consequently, Respondent No. 5 was reinstated, and the petitioner’s services were terminated by the same order. The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing they were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and were based on unreliable evidence.
Appearances:
Advocates Akshay Bhonde, for the Petitioner
Advocates Amit Bhatia and S.P. Pandey, for the Respondent
