Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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.

Similar News