In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court held that a government employer cannot alter the recorded date of birth of an employee after the expiration of five years from the date of initial appointment. Justice Aniruddha Roy delivered the verdict while hearing the writ petition filed by a government employee, Sabita Sen, against the decision of her employer to change her date of birth decades after she had joined the service.
Sabita Sen began her service in 1987 after submitting all necessary documents. An identity card issued to her on April 8, 2005, recorded her date of birth as October 16, 1967, which matched her original records. Her employment was made permanent in 2009, and the employer maintained a service book accordingly.
In 2024, during an internal review of her service book, the employer identified an alleged discrepancy and decided to change her recorded date of birth to October 16, 1965. This change was made after securing approval from the Deputy Inspector General of Correctional Services. The petitioner was officially informed about this alteration through a communication dated January 3, 2024.
"The prayer for change in Date of Birth in respect of Smt. Sabita Sen is considered and rejected... on the ground of limitation on time period of five years from the date of joining during which any prayer for change in date of birth of a Govt. employee can be entertained," stated the impugned order dated September 24, 2024, issued by the Special Inspector General of Correctional Services, West Bengal.
Challenging this decision, Sabita Sen filed a writ petition, arguing that she had submitted all relevant documents at the time of appointment, which were duly verified. The service book and her permanent employment status were based on these verified documents. She contended that the State's 2012 memorandum limiting corrections to a five-year period could not be applied in her case, as she was unaware of any dispute until the 2024 communication.
In response, the State relied on a report dated April 2, 2025, from the Law Cell of the Directorate of Correctional Services. The report pointed out inconsistencies in her school certificates:
in the Primary School Leaving Certificate issued on 16.11.1985, the date of birth was recorded as 16.10.1967. A second certificate issued on 12.06.2001 recorded it as 16.10.1965. Another certificate from 08.09.2020 again recorded it as 16.10.1967. The Police Verification Roll from 2021 also recorded the date as 16.10.1967.
The State argued that based on this mixed documentation, the 1965 date of birth was more accurate and that the 2012 memorandum was correctly applied. However, the Court rejected this argument, observing that the memorandum required that any correction request must be made within five years from joining. In this case, the employer raised the issue almost four decades later.
The facts in the instant case show that after decades of joining in the service, the petitioner for the first time... came to know about the dispute with regard to recording the date of birth raised by the employer. Therefore, the question of applying for correction... within the period of five years... was an illusory plea. This shows sheer non-application of mind with a mechanical approach, the Court noted.
The Court found the action of the employer to be arbitrary and without proper legal basis. It quashed the impugned communication dated September 24, 2024, and directed the authorities to record October 16, 1967, as the petitioner’s official date of birth.
"The retirement of the petitioner shall take place on the basis of the said Date of Birth being October 16, 1967, and the relevant calculation of terminal benefits should accordingly be done," the Court ordered.
With these directions, the Court allowed the writ petition and confirmed that the date of birth originally recorded at the time of appointment should stand.
Case Title: Sabita Sen v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.A. 4656 of 2025
Judgment Date: April 9, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Anirban Bose, Chandrachur Biswas, Satyajit Senapati
Counsel for the Respondents: Jhuma Chakraborty, Munmun Tewary
