ORDER :

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in W.A. No. 909 of 2006(S) whereby the Division Bench partly allowed the Writ Appeal of the respondent preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2003 dated 6.3.2006 dismissing the Writ Petition.

4. This is one of the exceptional case where the High Court, while ignoring all the principles of law laid down by this Court and many other High Courts with regard to the adjudication of dispute relating to date of birth of an employee, passed the impugned judgment.

5. From the facts it reveals that the respondent entered into the service of the appellant - Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short 'the Corporation') on 19th November, 1986. His date of birth was recorded in the service record as 3.2.1943 on the basis of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC). After about ten years of his appointment, sometime in July, 1996, the respondent asked for change of date of birth by making it 16.2.1945. The said request was not accepted by the appellant - Corporation. Consequently, in the year 1997, the respondent filed a suit being Original Suit No. 190 of 1997 for a declaration with regard to his date of birth. Surprisingly, the appellant was not impleaded as party in this suit and a decree was obtained for change of date of birth. Although the suit was said to have been decreed in 1998, but two days before his superannuation i.e. 28.2.2003, he filed a Writ Petition on 26.2.2003 claiming the relief that he, according to decree, shall superannuate on 28.2.2005. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that such a relief cannot be granted.

6. As against the said judgment, the respondent filed an appeal which was heard by the Division Bench passing the impugned order.

7. The law with regard to correction of date of birth has been time and again discussed by this Court and held that once the date of birth is entered in the service record, as per the educational certificates and accepted by the employee, the same cannot be changed. Not only that, this Court has also held that a claim for change in date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of retirement.

8. It has not been disputed by the respondent that at the time of appointment his date of birth was recorded in the service record as 3.2.1943 and the said date of birth was duly acknowledged and accepted by the respondent. It was only after appointment, he asked the appellant to change his date of birth, which was not accepted by the appellant-Corporation.

9. This Court in the case of State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302, elaborately dealth with such a demand made by the employee with regard to alteration in the date of birth. This Court observed:

'7. As held by this Court in Harnam case, (1993) 2 SCC 162, Rule 49 is to be harmoniously interpreted. The application for correction of the date of birth of an in-service employee should be made within five years from the date when the Rules had come into force, i.e., 1961. If no application is made, after expiry of five years, the Government employee loses his right to make an application for correction of his date of birth. It is seen that the respondent entered into the service on 12-1-1952, and only when he was due for superannuation at the age of 58 years on 31-8-1991, he made the application exactly one year before his superannuation. The Government rejected his claim before he attained the age of superannuation on 30-8-1991. When questioned, the Tribunal, for incorrect reasons, set aside the order and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The Government considered various facts and circumstances in the GOMs No. 271 and rejected the claim on 31-3-1993. The evidence is not unimpeachable or irrefutable. The Tribunal in it