Aadhaar, Voter ID Not Proof of Date of Birth in Service Matters: MP High Court
The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai has observed while setting aside a government order reinstating an Anganwadi worker and terminating her successor in Dhar district in Madhya Pradesh.
The Madhya Pradesh high court has held that the Aadhaar and voter identity cards cannot be treated as determinative proof of a person’s date of birth since “These documents are prepared based on self-declaration and are meant for identification purposes only”.
The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai has observed while setting aside a government order reinstating an Anganwadi worker and terminating her successor in Dhar district in Madhya Pradesh.
“These documents are prepared based on self-declaration and are only meant for identification purposes and cannot be statutory proof for the determination of age in service matters”, the bench has held.
The case relates to one Pramila who was appointed as Anganwadi Sahayika at the Jamil centre in Dhar district in a regular recruitment process.
Her posting was made after the retirement of her predecessor, Hirlibai, from service.
Nearly two years after her retirement, Hirlibai made a representation to the local additional collector demanding her reinstatement in the service arguing that her date of birth was wrongly entered in the service records.
Following this, the authorities set aside the appointment of Pramila and reinstated Hirlibai in the job.
Pramila moved the high court challenging the order removing her from the post.
The high court set aside the order reinstating Hirlibai in the job, holding that an employee who accepts the date of birth recorded in service records and allows it to attain finality cannot be permitted to challenge the same after retirement.
“Appellate authority completely ignored the doctrine of delay and laches, which is fatal in service jurisprudence. Once a person retires from service, the relationship of employer and employee comes to an end and reopening settled issues after retirement causes administrative uncertainty and injustice to third parties, as happened in the present case”, the bench has observed.
The court has held that in service matters, the date of birth recorded in official service records enjoys a presumption of correctness and remains the basis for the determination of service tenure, seniority and superannuation.
Therefore, the challenge to such an entry must be raised at the earliest and supported by impeachable evidence.
