District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala 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.

Latest Legal News