Timely application for correction of date of birth in service records is crucial; late requests, especially near retirement, lack merit.

ORDER :

1. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been taken up for final disposal.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of retirement dated 04.11.2023 (Annex.1) whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was ordered to be retired on 31.05.2024.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee in the year 1988. In the appointment order, his date of birth was given as 18.05.1964. In the year 2021, the petitioner made an application for correction of his date of birth in the service record based his claim on the duplicate certificate issued from the school authorities. On the application of the petitioner, the immediate superior officer appointed a committee to inquire into the matter. The committee visited the schools where the petitioner claims to have studied and produced the certificate in which the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 18.05.1969. The committee found the certificate produced by the petitioner to be genuine one.

4. Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent – authorities, while ignoring the application made by the petitioner for correction in the date of birth, passed the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was ordered to be retired on 31.05.2024. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 8-A Sub-rule (2)(b) Clause (iii) requires the appointing authority to make necessary entry in the service record of employee, as entered in the school record or entry of date of birth in the certificate issued by the Municipal Authorities or the Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner have the school certificate mentioning his correct date of birth hence, the respondents should have mentioned the same as per the Rule. It is submitted that the date of birth as mentioned in the service record is contrary to school record. On coming to know about the error, such correction was sought to be made by the application in the year 2021. The respondents authorities should have given due adherence to the Rules in this regard.

6. It is also the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the committee constituted, for the verification of the date of birth as mentioned in the certificate issued by the school, has given its opinion that the contents of the certificate are found to be correct. Therefore, the respondents authorities are required to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service records.

7. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner’s appointment order clearly indicates the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.05.1964 and that was basing on the self- declaration made by the petitioner himself. Even if the self- declaration made by the petitioner is ignored, the same date of birth is mentioned in other documents as well as in the seniority list prepared while giving promotion to the petitioner. Therefore, the date of birth of the petitioner cannot be said to be wrongly entered in the original service records. The entry regarding date of birth as mentioned in the appointment order was sought to be corrected at the fag end of his services or at the verge of retirement, which cannot be allowed.

8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the officer, who constituted the committee, was incompetent to do so. He was just an officer immediate superior to the petitioner. Appointment of the committee was itself