(Reserved on 01.01.2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR This the 19th day of January, 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Original Application No. 137 of 2017 Prabhu Dayal Lodhi, S/o Lt. Shri Channa Lodhi, Aged about 62 years, R/o Village & Post – Banauli, Police Station – Simariya, Tehsil Pawai, District – Panna (MP) – 488442. -Applicant Advocate for the applicant: Shri Abhishek Singh (absent)

V e r s u s

1. Union of India through Department of Posts (DoP), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.

2. Chief Post Master General, Dak Bhawan, Madhya Pradesh Circle, Bhopal, MP - 462012.

3. Head Post Office through Head Post Master, Chhatarpur, MP -

471001.

4. Sub Head Office, through Head Post Master, Jhajuraho, District –

Chhatarpur, M.P - 471606. -Respondents Advocate for the respondents: Shri Surendra Pratap Singh O R D E R When the matter was taken up for final arguments, nobody had appeared on behalf of the applicant, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the issue involved in the present OA and irregular appearance of applicant’s counsel, the matter was heard under rule 15(a) of CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987.

2. The grievance of the applicant is to correct the date of birth from 04.03.1952 to 15.10.1955. The applicant contended that pursuant to letter dated 17.06.2016, a list of employees who are going to retire between 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2018 after completion of 65 year of age was prepared in which his name was also included showing his date of birth as 04.03.1952 whereas, as per mark sheet of class 8th issued in the year 1971, his actual date of birth is 15.10.1955. Therefore, he preferred a representation dated 02.11.2016 for making correction in his date of birth but the same has been denied on the ground that the service record does not contain such document. The applicant contended that he had provided all details related to his date of birth but the respondents themselves wrongly mentioned his date of birth as 04.03.1952 in his service record and based on this, the respondents have issued order dated 06.01.2017 with regard to his retirement w.e.f. 03.03.2017 which is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified.

3. On the other hand, based on the contents of short reply the learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per service record, at the time of appointment the date of birth of the applicant was recorded as 04.03.1952 and the same was also mentioned in the subsequent seniority as well as gradation list. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the same date of birth was also recorded several times in Annual Inspection Reports and he never raised any objection. Referring to the DOPT order dated 23.04.2001 (Annexure R-3), the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the date of birth once taken on record at the time of appointment should be the one accepted for all purposes. The learned counsel for the respondents also referred to DOPT OM dated 19.05.1993 and submitted that an employee who intended to have their date of birth corrected may seek the correction of date of birth within a reasonable time but in any event not later than five years after the coming into force of amendment in 1979.

4. It is not disputed that the applicant was appointed in the year 1984 and after issuance of a list in the year 2016 regarding employees who are going to retire between 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2018, he approached the respondents for correction of his date of birth vide his representation dated 02.11.2016 i.e. after about 32 year of his appointment. As per the above DOPT OM referred by the respondents’ counsel, an employee already in service at the time of enforcement of rule should make the application for correction within five years from the date of enforcement of the rule otherwise he would lose his right to make such an application and the Government servant would not be permitted to challenge the entry at the fag end of his service. In the cas