Belated requests to alter a government employee’s date of birth after retirement are not entertainable.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his writ petition, which sought alteration of his date of birth in his service records.

He contended that although he entered Government service temporarily on 15 July 2003, he was permanently absorbed only in 2010 and had applied to alter his date of birth within five years of absorption.

He relied on a birth certificate issued in 2017.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, finding the application belated; the appellant had retired on 30 April 2020.

Whether the appellant’s application to alter his date of birth was entertainable, having regard to his claim that the relevant five-year period ran from his permanent absorption in 2010.

Whether the birth certificate issued in 2017 could establish the appellant’s correct date of birth and justify alteration of his service records.

The judgment cites no specific statute, service rule, or precedent.

It applies the principles that an application to alter a date of birth in service records, made after a long delay and after retirement, is not ordinarily entertainable; and that a birth certificate issued years later on the basis of an application by the person concerned is not, by itself, conclusive proof of the correct date of birth.

The Court was not persuaded by the appellant’s argument that the five-year period should be calculated from his permanent absorption in 2010.

It considered the 2017 birth certificate insufficiently reliable as conclusive proof because it had been issued on the basis of an application made by the appellant.

The Court also relied on the lateness of the request, the appellant’s retirement in 2020, and the broader repercussions that could follow from permitting long-delayed corrections to dates of birth.

It made no order as to costs and closed any connected miscellaneous petitions.