Introduction:

In the case of Sabita Sen v. State of West Bengal & Others [W.P.A. 4656 of 2025], the Calcutta High Court, through Justice Aniruddha Roy, dealt with a significant legal question regarding an employer’s authority to alter an employee’s recorded date of birth after a long passage of time. The petitioner, Sabita Sen, had joined government service in the year 1987. The dispute arose when, in 2024, her employer attempted to change her date of birth from October 16, 1967, to October 16, 1965, citing discrepancies in various school records. The petitioner contended that such a change was barred by the Government of West Bengal’s Memorandum dated January 24, 2012, which allows any correction to be made only within five years from the date of joining government service. Upon scrutiny of the facts and law, the Court held the employer’s action to be illegal and directed the restoration of the originally recorded date of birth, thus protecting the petitioner’s retirement and service benefits.

Arguments:

The petitioner, represented by advocates Anirban Bose, Chandrachur Biswas, and Satyajit Senapati, submitted that when she joined government service in 1987, she had submitted all relevant documents supporting her date of birth as October 16, 1967. These documents had been verified, and her service record, including her identity card issued on April 8, 2005, reflected the same date. Her employment had been made permanent in 2009, and a service book was duly prepared. It was only in January 2024 that she became aware of the employer’s intention to alter her date of birth based on alleged discrepancies found during scrutiny of her service book. The petitioner argued that this change was impermissible under the Government Memorandum dated January 24, 2012, which lays down a five-year limitation from the date of joining for seeking correction in the date of birth. Since this period had long lapsed, any such unilateral correction by the employer was without jurisdiction and bad in law. The petitioner further submitted that the documents relied upon by the employer to suggest an earlier date of birth were inconsistent and contradictory, and even the police verification report from 2021 confirmed her date of birth as October 16, 1967. The petitioner contended that the memorandum was intended to avoid precisely such arbitrary actions decades after joining service and therefore must be adhered to strictly.

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by advocates Jhuma Chakraborty and Munmun Tewary, defended the employer’s action by producing a report dated April 2, 2025, from the Officer-in-Charge, Law Cell, Directorate of Correctional Services. The report highlighted that different versions of the petitioner’s date of birth existed across multiple school leaving certificates. According to the respondents, a certificate issued on June 12, 2001, recorded the date of birth as October 16, 1965, contradicting earlier and later certificates issued by the same school. They argued that this inconsistency gave rise to a legitimate ground for scrutiny and correction. The respondents maintained that the employer, upon discovering this discrepancy, sought approval from the DIG of Correctional Services and modified the service record accordingly. They further claimed that the change was made in good faith to rectify a genuine mistake and thus should not be viewed as an arbitrary exercise of power. They relied upon the later-dated certificate of 2001 to argue that the initial entry of the date of birth may have been erroneous. However, they did not dispute the fact that the correction was carried out more than three decades after the petitioner joined service.

Court’s Judgment:

The Calcutta High Court, in a detailed judgment, held that the employer’s action of altering the recorded date of birth after such a long lapse of time was unsustainable in law. Justice Aniruddha Roy observed that the Government Memorandum dated January 24, 2012, clearly prescribed a five-year limitation from the date of joining government service for seeking any correction in the date of birth. The Court emphasised that this Memorandum was binding on the authorities and intended to ensure administrative certainty and avoid arbitrary changes in official records, many years after initial entry. In this case, the petitioner had joined service in 1987, and the attempt to alter the date of birth was made only in 2024, well beyond the prescribed period. The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner’s date of birth had consistently been recorded as October 16, 1967, in official records such as the identity card, police verification report, and the service book prepared in 2009. While acknowledging the discrepancy in school leaving certificates, the Court held that such inconsistency did not justify a belated change by the employer, especially when no attempt had been made by the petitioner herself to seek correction.

The Court further ruled that the impugned communication dated September 24, 2024, rejecting the petitioner’s plea to retain her original date of birth, was bad in law. It held that the respondent authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction by relying on documents that came into existence long after the petitioner’s joining, and which contradicted earlier accepted records. The Court quashed the communication and directed the authorities to record the petitioner’s date of birth as October 16, 1967, in all official service records. The Court also clarified that her retirement and calculation of terminal benefits must be based on this date. Justice Roy concluded by reiterating the need for certainty in public employment matters and the importance of respecting limitation periods set by government policy. With these findings, the writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner’s rights were fully restored.