Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by a retired gangman seeking to change his recorded date of birth nearly 38 years after joining service, holding that such claims cannot be entertained at the fag end of an employee's career.
A division bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai upheld an earlier order of a single judge, which had set aside a labour court award granting relief to the employee, Panna, who had challenged his retirement.
Panna was appointed as a gangman on March 1, 1978, and his date of birth was recorded in the service book as Oct 1, 1954. Just before his scheduled retirement in 2016, he claimed that his actual date of birth was June 3, 1959, and sought continuation in service till attaining the age of superannuation.
The labour court had stayed his retirement in 2016 and, in August 2018, directed the State to continue him in service with back wages, observing that the original service book had not been produced and only an uncertified photocopy was available. However, the single judge later quashed the award, holding that the employee could not seek alteration of his date of birth at the end of his service career.
Before the division bench, Panna relied on a primary school certificate to establish his claimed date of birth and argued that the service records were unreliable because the original service book had not been produced.
Rejecting the appeal, the HC observed that the employee had signed service documents reflecting his recorded date of birth throughout his nearly 38-year service and raised the dispute only months before retirement.
Employee's right to back wages after illegal retirement upheld
The HC has ruled that the State cannot invoke the principle of "no work, no pay" to deny salary to an employee who was kept out of service because of an illegal retirement order.
Dismissing a writ appeal filed by the State government, the court upheld an earlier order directing payment of salary for the period during which the employee was wrongfully prevented from working.
A division bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai affirmed the order of a single judge directing the State to pay Ram Kumar Sharma his salary for the period between May 31, 2015, and Nov 5, 2016, along with interest at 6% if the payment is not made within the stipulated time.
