Dismissed

Bhuneshwar Thakur v. Bokaro Steel Plant

CAT14 Sept 2026O.A./555/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This adjudication dismisses an Original Application seeking correction of the applicant's date of birth and consequential reinstatement. The court held the claim was time-barred as the applicant knew of the discrepancy since 2008 and filed late, violating the six-month window under the Administrative Tribunals Act and the five-year service rule. This decision by the Central Administrative Tribunal

What did the court decide?

The prayer for change of date of birth and consequential reinstatement was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Bhuneshwar Thakur vs Bokaro Steel Plant — Pension and Retirement Benefits | CAT (2026)

¶1

¶2

O.A. No. 051/00555/2026

¶3

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH CIRCUIT SITTING AT RANCHI

¶4

O.A. No. 051/00555/2026

¶5

Date of order :- 14.09.2026

¶6

C O R A M

¶7

HON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [A]

¶8

Bhuneshwar Thakur,

¶9

Aged about 58 years, son of Sri Jayram Thakur, Category-S8 in the Production Office of SRU- IFICO SAIL Refractories, Unit- IFICO, PO- Marar, PS- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh, Pin- 829117.

¶10

………Applicant

¶11

Versus

¶12

Steel Authority of India Limited through its Chairman-cumManaging Director, having its Registered Office at Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.

¶13

The Management of SAIL Refractories Unit, IFICO Refractories Unit, IFICO Refractories Plant, Marar, PO & PSMarar, District- Hazaribagh, Pin- 829117.

¶14

……..Respondents

¶15

For Applicant:-	Mrs. M. M. Pal
	Ms. Shipra Shalini
	Mr. Piyush Bharti
For Respondents:-	Ms. Milan Singh

¶16

Sonali Digitally signed by Lal Sonali Lal

¶17

¶18

O.A. No. 051/00555/2026

¶19

ORDER (Oral)

¶20

PER:- MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER[A]

¶21

Heard Learned Counsel for both the parties.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the applicant prays for issuance of notice.

¶23

The present OA has been filed seeking change of the applicant's date of birth from 01.07.1965 to 03.05.1967. According to the applicant, the latter date of birth is duly recorded in his matriculation certificate as well as in the relevant service records.

¶24

The relief sought in the present OA has two consequential aspects, namely, (a) change of the applicant's date of birth in the service records, and (b) consequential restoration/reinstatement in service, subject to change of the date of birth.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer on the ground that the claim is not maintainable, inter alia, in view of the DoP&T instructions governing alteration of date of birth, under which a request for such alteration is required to be made within five years of entry into Government service.

¶26

I have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

From Annexure-A/4, it is evident that the applicant had already raised the issue regarding his date of birth by way of a representation in the year 2008, which, according to the applicant, was received by the respondent authorities on 06.03.2008. Learned

¶28

Sonali Digitally signed by Lal Sonali Lal

¶29

¶30

O.A. No. 051/00555/2026

¶31

Counsel for the applicant submits that the said representation was never considered or disposed of by the respondents.

¶32

It is further submitted that, upon subsequently coming to know that the earlier representation had not been decided, the applicant submitted another representation dated 19.02.2025, which has been annexed as Annexure-A/5 to the OA. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Kamta Pandey v. BCCL , decided in W.P.(S) No.1193/2004 on 08.08.2007.

¶33

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in The Chief Executive Officer & Ors. v. S. Lalitha & Ors. , in SLP(C) No.6289/2019, decided on 24.04.2025, has laid down that the principle that a stale service claim cannot be revived merely by making a belated representation and that the subsequent representation does not have the effect of extending or reviving the period of limitation. Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the said principle by quoting Section 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which is reproduced as under:-

¶34

“20. Application not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted.—

¶35

(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.

¶36

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances,—

¶37

(a) if a final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order

¶38

Sonali Digitally signed by Lal Sonali Lal

¶39

¶40

O.A. No. 051/00555/2026

¶41

under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or

¶42

(b) where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.

¶43

(3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial.

¶44

“21. Limitation.—(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,—

¶45

(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;

¶46

(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.”

¶47

In the present case, the applicant was admittedly aware of the alleged discrepancy in his date of birth at least as far back as in the year 2008, when he himself submitted a representation seeking correction thereof. Thus, even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that the said representation was not disposed of by the respondents, the applicant cannot, after an unexplained lapse of several years, revive the stale claim by submitting another representation dated 19.02.2025 and thereafter approaching this Tribunal in the year 2026.

¶48

10.It is also significant that the applicant was served with notice indicating his impending retirement in June, 2025, yet he did not

¶49

Sonali Digitally signed by Lal Sonali Lal

¶50

¶51

O.A. No. 051/00555/2026

¶52

approach the Tribunal within the prescribed period and has filed the present OA only on 03.08.2026, i.e. after his retirement.

¶53

11.Apart from the statutory limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the claim for alteration of date of birth is also governed by the applicable DoP&T instructions, which stipulate that a request for alteration of date of birth is to be made within five years of entry into Government service and subject to the other conditions prescribed therein. The said requirement is intended to prevent stale claims relating to date of birth from being raised at the fag end of service.

¶54

12.In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Tribunal finds that the applicant had knowledge of the alleged discrepancy in his date of birth since at least 2008 and yet allowed the matter to remain unagitated before the appropriate forum for an inordinately long period. The subsequent representation dated 19.02.2025 cannot have the effect of extending or reviving the period of limitation. The present OA, filed on 03.08.2026, is therefore hopelessly barred by limitation.

¶55

13.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the OA is dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶56

14.There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) Member (A)

¶58

sl/-

¶59

Sonali Digitally signed by Lal Sonali Lal

Bhuneshwar Thakur v. Bokaro Steel Plant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuneshwar Thakur v. Bokaro Steel Plant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shishir Kumar Sirvastava vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar vs Union of India

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs Union of India

Atul Mishra vs Secretary

Mohd Iqbal Shah vs Ut of Jk through Commissioner Secretary School Education Department

Gulam Mohi Ud Din Khan vs Jal Shakti Department

Habibullah Khan vs Home Department

Smt Archana Devi vs Union of India