Date Of Birth Dispute: MP High Court Says Aadhaar, Voter ID Not Final Proof, Service Records Prevail

Aadhaar and Voter ID are typically accepted as identity and address proof in the know your customer (KYC) requirement. However, these are not the final proofs for the date of birth (DoB). In a recent judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that these documents are not considered “conclusive proof” of DoB under the service law.

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai said: “These documents are prepared on the basis of self-declaration and are meant for identification purposes alone. They are neither primary evidence nor statutory proof for the determination of age in service matters.” 

The matter belongs to an anganwadi worker who was appointed after the superannuation of her predecessor, but was terminated after two years to reinstate the superannuated worker, for there was a mismatch in the DoB in Aadhaar and service records of her predecessor. 

The court quashed the impugned order passed by the appellate tribunal.

Case Brief

The matter pertains to one anganwadi sahayika (Pramila), the petitioner in this case. She was appointed on June 19, 2018, at an anganwadi centre in Jamli (Ambapura), through a duly notified selection process. However, she was terminated after two years in September 2020, when her predecessor Hirlibai (one of the respondents), who superannuated on March 5, 2017, based on her DoB (March 5, 1955), claimed that her DoB was incorrect in the service record. Hirlibai claimed that her actual DoB was January 1, 1964, as mentioned on her Aadhaar and Voter ID cards, and accordingly, filed the appeal. 

In due course, in September 2020, the Additional Collector of Dhar allowed this appeal and ordered Hirlibai to join the service and terminated Pramila with immediate effect without giving her a chance of hearing.

Arguments

Pramila’s counsel argued that Hirlibai’s appeal was not maintainable because she had filed her appeal two years after her superannuation. The counsel also argued that the DoB on Aadhaar could not be taken as the final proof under service law. Further, the petitioner contended that she was not given a chance to be heard, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice.   

On the other hand, counsel of the employer (the State of Madhya Pradesh) argued that they were bound to comply with the order of the appellate authority. As there was only one post sanctioned at the concerned centre, they had no other option but to reinstate the superannuated employee.

Court’s Observation

The court observed that Hirlibai accepted her retirement in 2017 without protest, which meant the records related to her superannuation had attained finality. 

It said, “Once a person retires from service, the relationship of employer and employee comes to an end and reopening settled issues after retirement causes administrative uncertainty and injustice to third parties, as has happened in the present case. The Appellate Authority completely ignored the doctrine of delay and laches, which is fatal in service jurisprudence.” 

It further observed that the appellate order considered Hirlibai’s DoB on the Aadhaar card and the Voter ID, but it required careful examination under service jurisprudence.   

It said, “It is trite law that in service matters, the date of birth recorded in official service records enjoys a presumption of correctness, as the same is recorded at the time of entry into service and remains the basis for determination of service tenure, seniority, and superannuation. Any challenge to such entry must be raised at the earliest point of time and supported by unimpeachable evidence.” 

It also cited the Supreme Court precedents to emphasise that Aadhaar was a tool for identification, not proof of DoB.

Court Judgment

The court noted, “The Appellate Authority was fully aware that the post in question was already occupied by the petitioner pursuant to a lawful appointment. Despite such knowledge, the authority proceeded to decide the appeal behind her back. This omission strikes at the very root of fair procedure and renders the order void.” 

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the order of the Additional Collector. It directed the state government to reinstate Pramila with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, in accordance with the law. It further ordered the authorities to recover the entire salary paid to Hirlibai since her reinstatement, along with 6 per cent interest per annum, and deposit it with the state exchequer within 60 days.