IMPORTANT POINT
Requests for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service are not sustainable, as established by various precedents.

JUDGMENT :

The Writ Court’s decision in W.P.(S) No. 4083 of 2021 has been challenged by the appellant on the ground that date of birth of an employee can be corrected even at the fag end of the service provided there is unimpeachable documentary evidence in support thereof.

2. The appellant has pleaded that at the time of his appointment on the post of sweeper under the Bharat Cooking Coal Limited (BCCL) in the year 1987 a Medical Board was constituted and his age was assessed around 19 years at that time. On the other hand, the BCCL referred to the school leaving certificate and an affidavit duly sworn by the appellant wherein he himself disclosed his date of birth on 6th December 1961. The stand taken by the BCCL is that the date of superannuation of the appellant has been fixed on the basis of the aforementioned documents produced by the appellant himself.

3. The writ court referred to “State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan” (1994) 6 SCC 302, “Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran” 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155, “Manik Chand Ghosh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors.” 2004 (1) JCR 51 (Jhr.), “State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble” (2010) 14 SCC 423, “State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas” (2011) 9 SCC 664 and “Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Singh” (2020) 2 Supreme Today 189 and formed an opinion that the writ petition seeking a direction for correction in the date of birth was not maintainable.

4. The writ Court held as under :

“5. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in this writ petition. Admittedly, the age of retirement has been fixed on the documents furnished by the petitioner himself. The school leaving certificate as well as affidavit sworn by the petitioner shows the date of birth as 6.12.1961 and in the service excepts also, date of birth has been mentioned as 6.12.1961. Considering these aspects of the matter, the petitioner has been rightly made to retire on 31.12.2021. The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions has held that request for change of date of birth in service records at the fag end of service career is not sustainable.

6. In case of State of Tamil Nandu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan, reported (1994) 6 SCC 302, the Hon’ble Apex Court was clearly of the opinion that the government servant should not be permitted to correct the date of birth at the fag end of his service career. The Court, in very strong terms, observed as under:-

".....The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register.”

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. Vs. R. Kirubakaran, reported in 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 155, has held as under:

“7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service]. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotion forever. …According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basi