SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3762

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member, Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member
Amalesh Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. 1459/2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.K. Manna
For the Respondents: R. Halder

A government servant cannot claim a shift in their date of birth as a matter of right, especially after a significant delay (laches), and such requests must strictly adhere to statutory time limits and departmental regulations, which generally bar alterations after five years of entry into service.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - S.19 - Date of birth - Change in service record - Request made 34 years after entry into service - Department guidelines restrict such changes to within 5 years of entry - Held, inordinate delay and lack of adherence to mandatory time limits preclude the relief sought - Application dismissed.

Facts of the case:
The applicant joined service in 1984 with his date of birth recorded as 05.01.1959 based on school admit card. In 2012, he obtained a birth certificate from the municipal corporation indicating his date of birth as 10.03.1960. A representation for correction was filed in 2018, which was not addressed, leading the applicant to file the current application.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal observed that the DOPT Office Memorandum dated 16.12.2014 strictly prescribes a five-year limitation for requesting date of birth changes. Given the 34-year delay and the attempt to change the date near retirement, the claim is barred by the settled law on laches and the specific rules governing government service.

Issues: Whether the request for a change in the date of birth in the service record is maintainable after 34 years of service and whether it complies with applicable departmental regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for change of date of birth is not a matter of right and must conform to applicable regulations; specifically, requests made after an inordinate delay, especially near the fag end of service, are rightly rejected as per established Supreme Court precedents and the DOPT guidelines.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's plea for correction of birth date in service records. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties argument regarding evidence and regulatory time limits for correction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court applies established precedents and dop&t rules regarding time-barred correction requests. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

O R D E R

Per Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :

1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):

“a) To direct the respondent No.4 to consider and pass an order to the representation submitted by the applicant on 24.01.2018 forthwith;

b) To pass an order directing the respondent no.4 to correct the Date of Birth of the applicant on the basis of the contemporeneous documents submitted with the application to the respondent No.4;

c) To pass such other or further order or orders and/or direction or directions as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper;”

2. Facts as narrated by the applicant are as follows: Applicant was initially appointed as Sorting Assistant on 23.12.1984. Thereafter, the applicant was transferred to Director of Accounts (Postal), West Bengal Circle as Lower Division Clerk on 01.03.1991. The applicant was promoted to the post of Junior Accountant on 01.10.1996. The applicant was promoted to the post of Senior Accountant on 04.11.2010. When the applicant entered the service of the respondent, the Date of Birth entered into the service record was 05.01.1959. The said entry was made in the service record of the applicant on the basis of the Admit Card issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. However, later on, the applicant came into possession of his horoscope, made shortly after his birth, which showed his date of birth as 10.03.1960. Thereafter, he approached the hospital in Calcutta where he was born and on the basis of records furnished by the hospital, obtained a birth certificate from Kolkata Municipal Corporation. On receipt of these documents, the applicant submitted a representation to the respondent no. 4 on 24.01.2018 praying therein to change the date of birth of the applicant from 05.01.1959 to 10.03.1960. The applicant has not received any orders from the respondent no. 4 to his representation dated 24.01.2018. Hence this O.A.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that it is settled principle of law that for determining the age of a person, the best evidence is of his/her parents, if it is supported by unimpeachable documents. In case the date of birth depicted in the School Register/Certificate stands belied by the un-impeachable evidence of reliable persons and contemporaneous documents like the Date of Birth Register of the Municipal Corporation, Govt. Hospital/Nursing Home, etc., the entry in the School Register is to be discarded. In this case, the certificate granted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is an un-impeachable document and as such, the date of birth of the applicant should be changed on the basis of the said documents.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had no occasion to seek correction of his date of birth before coming to know the recording of his actual date of birth in an unimpeachable contemporaneous documents like Horoscope and the Birth Certificate issued by the Lohia Matri Seva Sadan and also the Birth Certificate issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The applicant discovered the Horoscope from the abandoned family papers kept at the ancestral home only in the year 2012 and the application for correction of date of birth was submitted by the applicant on the basis of the said documents within a short span of time and as such the authority concerned should have considered the application for correction of Date of Birth of the applicant.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the authority concerned cannot sit tight over the application of the applicant for months toget

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top