In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, dismissed a writ petition filed by Gudappa Ningappa Kolaji against Grasim Industries, emphasizing the precedence of official service records over post-retirement claims of date of birth discrepancies. Justice M.G.S. Kamal, presiding over the case, highlighted that Kolaji had accepted his retirement benefits based on the date of birth recorded in his employment documents, which he did not contest during his service or immediately after retirement. The court reiterated that attempts to alter the date of birth long after employment commenced are generally impermissible, as established in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. Shyam Kishore Singh.
Background of the Case
Gudappa Ningappa Kolaji, represented by advocate Santosh S. Hattikatgai, was employed as a Pulp Drawing Processor at Grasim Industries from October 1, 1983, until his retirement on March 9, 2006. Kolaji claimed that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded as March 10, 1948, leading to his premature retirement. He asserted that his actual date of birth was March 30, 1952, which he discovered after obtaining a birth certificate post-retirement. Kolaji sought to have his retirement date adjusted to March 30, 2010, and requested the corresponding benefits.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue was whether Kolaji’s date of birth could be amended post-retirement to reflect the newly discovered date, thereby extending his service period and entitling him to additional benefits. The case hinged on the validity of the date of birth recorded in employment documents versus the birth certificate obtained later.
Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court upheld the Labor Court’s decision to reject Kolaji’s petition. The court emphasized the importance of the date of birth recorded in official employment documents. Justice Kamal noted that Kolaji had not contested the recorded date of birth during his employment or immediately upon retirement. The court cited the Supreme Court ruling in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, which established that attempts to alter the date of birth long after employment commenced are generally impermissible.
Also Read
Key Observations
Justice Kamal observed, “The petitioner continued to render his service and avail the benefit thereof on the basis of having been appointed considering his date of birth as March 10, 1948.” The court found no grounds to challenge the Labor Court’s order, stressing that Kolaji had accepted all retirement benefits without dispute and only later sought to amend his date of birth.
