Belated requests for date of birth alteration cannot override long-standing entries in official service records.

The applicant, Narayan, was initially engaged as casual labor and later regularized as a Technician Grade-I in the East Central Railway, Samastipur Division

He was retired from service on 31.05.2017 based on the respondents' records indicating his date of birth as 05.05.1957

The applicant filed this Original Application (OA) seeking a direction to treat his date of birth as 12.12.1959 and for subsequent reinstatement, claiming he was retired prematurely at the age of 57

He relied upon a Medical Memo and a Casual Labour Card (Red Card) dated 27.02.1985 to support his claim

The respondents contested the claim, asserting that the Service Book and an affidavit signed by the applicant himself recorded the 1957 date

Furthermore, they challenged the authenticity of the 1985 Medical Memo, stating such internal documents are never provided to employees

1. Whether a request for the alteration of a date of birth can be entertained after the retirement of the employee

2. Whether unauthenticated documents like a Casual Labour Card or a Medical Memo in the possession of an employee can override official Service Book entries and a personal affidavit

The Tribunal applied the settled principle of service jurisprudence that any request for the alteration of a date of birth must be made within a reasonable timeframe, generally within the first five years of joining service

The court further relied on the principle that official entries in a Service Book, supported by a self-sworn affidavit of the employee, carry higher evidentiary value than unauthenticated internal departmental documents or documents produced as an afterthought following retirement

The Tribunal observed that the applicant allowed his entire career to pass—spanning over three decades—without once challenging the 05.05.1957 date of birth recorded in his service records

It held that this prolonged silence implied an acceptance of the recorded date

Regarding the evidence, the Tribunal found the 1985 Medical Memo produced by the applicant to be of doubtful authenticity because such documents are internal to the department and not typically handed to employees

In contrast, the respondents produced primary evidence including the Departmental Service Book and an affidavit from the applicant himself, both consistently stating the 1957 date

The Tribunal reasoned that in the absence of a Matriculation Certificate or other primary proof, the applicant's claim, raised only after retirement (via representations in 2017 and 2019), was a mere afterthought and legally insufficient to override long-standing official records

It concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the respondents' decision to retire the applicant based on the date of birth (05.05.1957) recorded in the Service Book

The prayer for reinstatement and correction of date of birth was denied. No order as to costs was made