Supreme Court Upholds Retirement Age: Employee’s Attempt to Change Date of Birth Rejected

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in The General Manager, M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. The Vice President, United Mines Mazdoor Union & Ors., addressing the issue of employees seeking to alter their recorded date of birth to extend their service period. The Court upheld the decision of the employer, dismissing the employee’s claim to revise his date of birth after several decades of service.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around an employee, respondent no.3, who was initially employed as a Piece Rated Mazdoor at Barsua Iron Ore Mines under Rourkela Steel Plant, a unit of Hindustan Steel Limited (HSL), which later merged into the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL).

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/employment-transfers-and-standing-orders-supreme-courts-landmark-judgment-in-divgi-metal-wares-ltd-vs-employees-association/

• In 1972, the employee declared his date of birth as 27.12.1948 when he was employed on a casual basis.
• In 1982, nearly a decade later, he sought to change his date of birth to 12.03.1955, claiming that his school transfer certificate supported this new date.
• He continued to work until 2008, when he retired based on the originally recorded date of birth (27.12.1948).
• In 2018, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) ruled in his favor, ordering that his revised date of birth be considered and awarding him 50% back wages from his retirement in 2008 until his supposed retirement in 2015.
• The employer, Barsua Iron Ore Mines, challenged the CGIT’s ruling in the High Court of Orissa, which dismissed the challenge.
• The matter was then escalated to the Supreme Court, which overturned the lower court’s rulings.

Arguments by the Appellant (Barsua Iron Ore Mines)

• The appellant argued that the respondent initially declared his date of birth as 27.12.1948, which was accepted and signed by him at the time of his employment.
• They contended that the employee could not be allowed to change his date of birth after almost a decade.
• The employer highlighted that if the employee’s claimed date of birth (12.03.1955) had been recorded at the time of employment, he would have been underage (17 years and 1 month), making him ineligible for the job.
• It was argued that allowing such changes retrospectively could lead to manipulation of service records and unjust extensions of employment.

Arguments by the Respondent (Employee)

• The respondent claimed that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded when he was first employed.
• He argued that his school transfer certificate, which he submitted in 1998, proved his actual date of birth as 12.03.1955.
• He contended that the employer had corrected his records in 1982, but later reverted to the earlier date without justification.
• He maintained that he was unfairly retired in 2008 and should have been allowed to work until 2015.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

• The Court emphasized that date of birth records must be consistent and cannot be altered arbitrarily after decades of service.
• It ruled that the employee had initially declared his date of birth as 27.12.1948 and had accepted this officially, making later changes invalid.
• The Court observed that if the employee’s revised date of birth (12.03.1955) had been recorded at the time of employment, he would have been ineligible for the job.
• It cited previous cases establishing that changes in date of birth should be made within a reasonable timeframe and not at the fag end of service.
• The Court stated: “Allowing such claims would set a dangerous precedent, where employees could attempt to extend their service period through retrospective changes.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employer and issued the following directives:

• The appeal by Barsua Iron Ore Mines was allowed, overturning the previous rulings.
• The employee’s retirement in 2008 was deemed valid based on his initially recorded date of birth (27.12.1948).
• The CGIT’s order granting 50% back wages until 2015 was set aside.
• The employer was permitted to maintain records based on the originally declared date of birth.

Implications of the Judgment

• This ruling reinforces the principle that employees cannot change their date of birth retrospectively to extend their service tenure.
• It sets a precedent that employers can rely on initially recorded dates of birth unless genuine errors are demonstrated within a reasonable timeframe.
• The judgment ensures that pension and retirement policies remain consistent and are not subject to undue alterations.
• It serves as a deterrent against attempts to manipulate service records for personal benefit.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case establishes a crucial precedent in employment law, ensuring that service records remain consistent and free from manipulation. By upholding the employer’s decision and rejecting retrospective changes to the date of birth, the ruling protects the integrity of employment records and prevents misuse of legal processes to extend service periods. This judgment reaffirms the principle that fairness in employment extends to both employees and employers, maintaining stability in workforce management.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-awards-%e2%82%b950-lakh-compensation-for-wrongful-termination-of-army-personnel/

Petitioner Name: The General Manager, M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines.
Respondent Name: The Vice President, United Mines Mazdoor Union & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Hima Kohli, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Place Of Incident: Barsua Iron Ore Mines, Odisha.
Judgment Date: 02-04-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: the-general-manager,-vs-the-vice-president,-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-02-04-2024.pdf