(Reserved on 14.01.2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR This the 22nd day of January, 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Original Application No. 82 of 2018 Ramdas, S/o Chhotelal, aged about 59 years, Pointsman-A, Station Mandi Bamora, Tah. Beena, Distt – Sagar (MP) - 470001.

-Applicant Advocate for the applicant: Ms. Sushma Pandey V e r s u s

1. Union of India through the General Manager, West Central Railway, Office at Indira Market, Jabalpur - 482001.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Jabalpur Zone at DRM Office Campus, West Central Railway, Bhopal - 462001.

3. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Jabalpur Zone at DRM Office Campus, West Central Railway, Bhopal - 462001.

4. The Divisional Railway Manager (Running), Bhopal at DRM Office Campus, West Central Railway, Bhopal (M.P) - 462001.

-Respondents Advocate for the respondents: Shri A.P. Khare O R D E R The grievance of the applicant is to interpolate his date of birth in service record as 28.11.1960 instead of 15.03.1958 and to direct the respondents to treat his date of retirement as 30.11.2020 instead of 31.03.2018. The applicant contended that when he was informed by the Station Manager, Mandi Bamora regarding his date of retirement i.e. 31.03.2018, he submitted an application dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure A- 4) before DRM, WCR, Bhopal for correction of his date of birth according to his educational documents available on service record. The applicant contended that in the documents i.e. mark sheet of 5th class, school leaving certificate and the transfer certificate of Primary School Birpura, which are available on the service record, his date of birth has been mentioned as 28.11.1960 but the respondents themselves wrongly mentioned his date of birth as 15.03.1958 in his service record and based on this, the respondents have calculated his retirement w.e.f.

31.03.2018 which is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified.

2. On the other hand, based on the contents of reply the learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per service record, at the time of appointment on 04.07.1976 as Monthly Rated Casual Labour, the applicant himself had declared his date of birth as 15.03.1958 and the same was recorded at the front page of his service register which was signed by the applicant (Annexure R-1) and the same was also mentioned in the subsequent service documents which were also verified by the applicant from time to time and he never raised any objection. Referring to rule 225(iii) of IREC-I (Annexure R-2), 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 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.

3. It is not disputed that the applicant was appointed in the year 1976 and after coming to know that he is going to retire on 31.03.2018, he approached the respondents for correction of his date of birth vide his representation dated 18.12.2017 i.e. after about 40 year of his appointment. It is notable that 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 case of State of T.N Vs. T.V. Venugopalan – (1994)6SCC302, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the rule provided that an application for alteration of recorded date of birth would be entertained only if made within five years after entering the service. Further, in the case of Secretary & Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. Vs. R. Kirubakaran – JT 1993 (5) SC 404, Hon’ble Supreme