The court ruled that claims for correction of date of birth in service records, particularly at the fag-end of service, are not a matter of right and can be rejected due to delay and lack of proper evidence.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J :

Heard Sri K.R.K.V. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner entered in service in the year 1977. In the Service Register, his date of birth was mentioned as 15.02.1954. In the year 2013 he filed representation for correction of the date of birth in the Service Register as 15.02.1959. His representation was rejected on 26.02.2014. He filed OA No.381 of 2014 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, at Hyderabad (in short, the Tribunal).

3. The OA was dismissed by order dated 31.12.2014 against which the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present is not a case for correction of date of birth but only the correction in the 'words' stating that in 'numerical' it was corrected as 15.02.1959.

5. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.

6. The submission that the present is a case for correction, only in 'words' to represent the correct 'numerical' is misconceived. From perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is evident that when the petitioner/applicant approached the 4th respondent-Senior Section Engineer (Permanent Way), South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division, seeking for some appointment benefit to his ward, under LARSGESS Scheme, he was informed that under the said scheme, he was not eligible, as his date of birth recorded in the Service Book was 15.02.1954. The applicant then filed representation dated 09.11.2013 that his date of birth was erroneously recorded as 15.02.1954 which was later on corrected as 15.02.1959 in 'numericals' but the correction could not be made in 'words'. The Tribunal has recorded, on perusal of such entry that, such figure i.e., 1959', after correction of 1954' had no initials of any competent authority. Thus, according to the applicant/petitioner himself, 15.02.1954 was the recorded date of birth, which was said to have been corrected but such correction was without any order of any competent authority and that too was only in 'figure' but without any initials. The above said case of the petitioner, was not accepted by the Tribunal, being not convincing. Further, the Tribunal with respect to the petitioner's School Certificate issued by the Government Elementary School, Kondipalem, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District observed that there was no record in respect of the study of the petitioner in that school and that the Service Register did not disclose anything in respect of the production of any School Certificate at the time of recording of his date of birth.

7. The representation for correction in date of birth was given for the first time in the year 2013. The petitioner entered the service in 1977.

8. In Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja and others , (2021) 12 SCC 27 , the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated, that the application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable and even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also, more particularly when it is made at the fag-end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.

9. Paras 10 to 12 of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited's case (supra), are reproduced as under :

10. Even otherwise and assuming that the reasoning given by the High Court for the sake of convenience is accepted in that case also even respondent No.1-employee was not entitled to any relief or change of date of birth on the grou