MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

An Employee Cannot Play Hide and Seek with Date of Birth for Employment Benefits – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India recently dealt with the legalities surrounding an employee’s change in date of birth in service records and the implications it has on employment benefits. The apex court emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in declaring the date of birth, considering its critical role in determining eligibility for employment and subsequent retirement benefits.

Brief Facts: The case revolved around an employee of Barsua Iron Ore Mines (Respondent no.3), who initially declared his date of birth as 27.12.1948 at the time of his employment but later sought to change it to 12.03.1955. This alteration impacted his retirement date and claims for back wages. The dispute was whether the employer should accept this late declaration altering the retirement benefits.

Authenticity of Date of Birth: The Court highlighted the dubious nature of the employee’s conduct. Initially declaring 27.12.1948 and changing it after a decade without adequate proof initially cast doubt on the authenticity of his claims.

Application of Estoppel: The Court applied the principle of estoppel, preventing the employee from contradicting his initial declaration. The court cited precedents to emphasize the importance of consistency in date of birth declarations in employment records.

Fraud and Delay in Declaration: The Court scrutinized the employee’s late revelation of his alleged real date of birth, pointing out that it came long after his employment commenced and only when benefits were at stake.

Impact on Legal Employment Age: The Court noted that had the real date of birth (12.03.1955) been declared initially, the respondent would not have been legally employed due to being underage.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Barsua Iron Ore Mines, setting aside the Award by the CGIT and the judgment of the High Court. It was held that the respondent no.3’s retirement date should be considered as per the initially declared date of birth (27.12.1948). The direction for 50% back wages from retirement until notional superannuation in 2015 was also set aside.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2024

The General Manager, M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines vs. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors.

Latest Legal News