Alteration of date of birth in service records cannot be entertained at the fag end of service.

The Petitioner was a retired Principal of the Victoria Blind School who joined service as a Special Teacher on October 1, 1981.

At the time of entry, her date of birth (DOB) was recorded as October 15, 1956.

In 1983, she applied for a correction to October 15, 1960, based on a horoscope.

In 2002, the Tahsildar informed her that no such birth records existed for 1960–1962.

Subsequently, in 2006, she obtained an order from the JMFC, Miraj, under Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, leading to the issuance of a birth certificate.

She submitted this certificate in 2007, but the request was rejected due to the 27-year delay.

Following previous rounds of litigation and a court-directed reconsideration, the Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated September 13, 2022, rejecting the correction.

The Petitioner retired on October 31, 2014.

1. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the correction of her date of birth in service records based on a birth certificate obtained 24 years after joining service.

2. Whether an application for alteration of date of birth can be entertained at the "fag end" of a career or after retirement under the relevant service rules.

Rule 38(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, which mandates that applications for DOB alteration must be made within five years of entering service (shortened to one year by a 2021 amendment).

The precedent set in State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble (2010), which held that DOB corrections at the "fag end" of service are impermissible.

Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993) regarding the employee's obligation to seek timely corrections.

Dnyaneshwar Baban Katkar v. Director General of Police (2025), reiterating the bar on inordinate delays in such claims.

The Court observed that in 1983, the Petitioner lacked any legally acceptable document, as a horoscope possesses no legal sanctity for establishing DOB.

The birth certificate obtained in 2006—24 years into her service—via a JMFC order did not satisfy the requirements of the service rules which require "unquestionable proof" submitted within the limitation period.

The Court found the Petitioner’s claim "hopelessly barred by limitation" under Rule 38, noting that she pursued the claim even after her 2014 retirement.

The court reasoned that permitting such alterations at the end of a career contradicts settled legal principles and legislative intent, as the Petitioner had ample opportunity to verify her service book during her tenure but failed to produce valid evidence within the prescribed window.

The Court answered both issues in the negative, confirming that corrections cannot be made at the verge of or after retirement.

The Court directed the Respondents to process and disburse all pensionary and retiral benefits based on the recorded DOB (October 15, 1956) within three months.