THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S BARSUA IRON ORE MINES versus THE VICE PRESIDENT UNITED MINES MAZDOOR UNION AND ORS.

Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 02-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 63 : 2024 INSC 264
The General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines 
v. 
The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4686 of 2024)
02 April 2024
[Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Respondent initially declared his date of birth as 27.12.1948. 
Later, in descriptive roll, he changed his initially recorded date 
of birth i.e. 27.12.1948 to 12.03.1955. Based on his declaration 
at the time of initial employment the Competent Authority of the 
appellant determined the date of birth of the respondent no.3 as 
27.12.1948. The respondent no.3 superannuated from service 
based on his initially recorded date of birth [27.12.1948]. Whether 
the respondent no.3 is held to have been rightly retired in terms 
of his date of birth as 27.12.1948.
Headnotes
Service Law – Superannuation – Discrepancy in date of birth 
– The CGIT passed its Award and held that the appellant’s 
determination of the respondent no.3’s date of birth based 
on the initial Descriptive Roll (27.12.1948) was unjustified 
and thus, awarded him 50% back wages from his retirement 
in 2008 until his supposed date of superannuation in 2015, 
based on the date of birth disclosed in the STC i.e., 12.03.1955 
– Propriety:
Held: The disclosure of the originally-given date of birth 
(27.12.1948) by the respondent no.3 was a well-thought out plan 
hatched by him, at the relevant time – His conduct cannot be 
simply brushed aside on a plea that there was an error on the 
part of the appellant in recording his date of birth – Examined 
thus, the following is evincible: (a) the Competent Authority noticed 
discrepancy in the date of birth in the records of the appellant and, 
upon due scrutiny, opined that the declaration of date of birth made 
by the respondent no.3 at the first point of time, i.e., 27.12.1948, 
should be taken as his date of birth, as till 1998 no documentary 
proof was given, and; (b) the respondent no.3 would not have 
64
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
been able to legally come into employment on 27.12.1972, had 
he disclosed his date of birth as 12.03.1955 – No fault can be 
found with the appellant on this score – It is a just and reasonable 
conclusion by the appellant’s Competent Authority – The principles 
of estoppel would come into play in the present case – The 
respondent no.3, having stated on 27.12.1972, that his date of 
birth was 27.12.1948, cannot be permitted to raise the claim of 
his date of birth being 12.03.1955, that too on 14.08.1982, i.e., 
almost after a decade (counting from 27.12.1972 to 14.08.1982) 
– Even the STC was submitted after the appellant requested 
the respondent no.3 for documentary proof on 24.11.1998 – The 
respondent no.3 is held to have been rightly retired in terms of 
his date of birth reckoned as 27.12.1948 – The further direction 
to award 50% back wages to the respondent no.3 from the date 
he was retired till the (notional) superannuation on 31.03.2015, 
also stands set aside. [Paras 17 and 19]
Case Law Cited
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shib Kumar Dushad [2000] 
Suppl. 4 SCR 336 : (2000) 8 SCC 696; Union of India 
v C Rama Swamy [1997] 3 SCR 760 : (1997) 4 SCC 
647 – relied on.
Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. 
T P Nataraja [2021] 7 SCR 634 : (2021) 12 SCC 27; 
Home Department v. R Kirubakaran [1993] Suppl. 2 
SCR 376 : (1994) Supp (1) SCC 155; State of Madhya 
Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas [2011] 11 SCR 444 : (2011) 
9 SCC 664; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R 
Basavaraju (2016) 15 SCC 781; Bharat Coking Coal 
Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC 411 – 
referred to.
List of Keywords
Service Law; Superannuation; Date of birth; Discrepancy in the 
date of birth; Principle of estoppel; Back wages.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4686 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2021 of the High Court 
of Orissa at Cuttack in WP(C) No. 9424 of 2019
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
65
The General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. 
The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms. Rashika Swarup, Advs. 
for the Appellant.
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Satyalipsu Ray, Ritesh Patil, Advs. for 
the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
1.	
Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant and 
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned cou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.