Journalism of Courage
Premium
Aadhaar, voter ID not conclusive proof of date of birth: Madhya Pradesh High Court quashes retired worker’s reinstatement
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai held that these documents are prepared on the basis of self-declaration and are meant for identification purposes alone and are not statutory proof for determination of age in service matters.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that these documents are prepared on the basis of self-declaration and are meant for identification purposes alone.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside orders reinstating a retired Anganwadi worker and terminating her successor, holding that Aadhaar and voter ID cards cannot be treated as conclusive proof of date of birth in service matters.
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai held that these documents are created based on self-declaration and are only meant for identification purposes and cannot be statutory proof for determination of age in service matters.
“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 determination of age in service matters,” the court held.
Aadhaar & Voter ID Not Conclusive Age Proof: MP High Court
Court's Key Ruling
Aadhaar Card and Voter Identity Card cannot be treated as determinative proof of date of birth in service matters
What Takes Precedence
Service records accepted by employee and allowed to attain finality override identity documents
Legal Principle Applied
Doctrine of delay and laches is fatal in service jurisprudence after retirement
Administrative Impact
Reopening settled issues post-retirement causes uncertainty and injustice to third parties
Express InfoGenIE
Findings
- The law is well settled that an employee who accepts the date of birth recorded in service records and allows it to attain finality cannot be permitted to challenge the same after retirement.
- The Appellate Authority completely ignored the doctrine of delay and laches, which is fatal in service jurisprudence.
- 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.
- Aadhaar card and voter identity card cannot be treated as determinative proof of her date of birth.
- Petitioner’s appointment was not ad-hoc or temporary in nature but was made in accordance with the prescribed guidelines.
- Consequently, the petitioner acquired a valuable civil right to continue on the post, subject to law.
Background
- The plea was filed by one Pramila, who was appointed as Anganwadi Sahayika at the Jamli centre in Dhar district following a regular selection process.
- Her appointment came after the previous incumbent, Hirlibai, was superannuated.
- Nearly two years after retirement, Hirlibai approached the Additional Collector, Dhar, claiming that her date of birth had been wrongly recorded.
- Relying on the entries made in her Aadhaar card and voter ID card, the appellate authority allowed her appeal in September 2020 and ordered her reinstatement.
- Acting on this order, the authorities reinstated Hirlibai and removed Pramila from service.
Directions
The court directed to reinstate the petitioner Pramila on the post of Anganwadi Sahayika, Anganwadi Centre Jamli (Ambapura) and the benefit with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, including notional seniority and monetary benefits.
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Advertisement
Live Blog