Correction of date of birth at belated stage not permissible.

The applicant, Jagdish Prasad Gupta, was appointed as an EDDA in 1977 and was working as GDS/ABPM.

A retirement list issued on December 5, 2019, indicated his retirement on October 31, 2020, based on a date of birth (DOB) of November 1, 1955.

The applicant contended that his correct DOB was November 27, 1958, which would make him eligible for retirement on November 30, 2023.

He submitted a representation on December 24, 2019, protesting the incorrect DOB.

In response, he was asked to submit documents in proof of his DOB via a letter dated July 19, 2011 (Annexure R-2).

The applicant provided a certificate from the Headmaster, Junior High School, Pali, dated December 30, 2006, stating his DOB as November 27, 1958.

Despite this, Respondent No. 3 issued an order on October 5, 2020, directing his retirement on October 31, 2020.

The respondents stated that the applicant's DOB was recorded as November 1, 1955, in the divisional gradation list published on July 1, 2013, and that he failed to provide a valid certificate like a mark sheet, initial joining charge report, or appointment letter for correction despite being asked in 2011.

Whether the applicant is entitled to correction of his date of birth in service records at the fag end of his career.

Whether the certificate from the Headmaster provided by the applicant is a valid document to ascertain his correct date of birth for service records.

Objections to the date of birth recorded at the time of appointment must be raised promptly, not at the "fag end of service".

Evidence produced subsequently is of no avail if no attempt was made to correct the service record while in service.

An employee cannot be allowed to raise a dispute regarding the correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his career.

No dispute regarding DOB correction should be permitted after a long time joining service unless based on typographical or arithmetical error.

The date of birth recorded in the service record governs the date of superannuation.

Belated applications for alteration made after unexplained and inordinate delay, on the eve of retirement, should be scrutinized carefully and interference made sparingly.

Long delay and laches make such claims unentertainable.

The court applied the established legal principle that corrections to the date of birth in service records cannot be sought at a belated stage, especially at the fag end of one's career.

The applicant's attempt to correct his DOB in 2019, just before his scheduled retirement, after nearly 42 years of service since his appointment in 1977, was deemed an "afterthought".

The court noted that the applicant was informed about the recorded DOB in the 2013 gradation list and was asked in 2011 to provide valid documents like a mark sheet, initial joining report, or appointment letter for any correction, which he failed to do.

The certificate from the Headmaster, stating the DOB was recorded at the time of admission, was considered insufficient and not a valid document to ascertain the correct date of birth.

The court explicitly referenced numerous Supreme Court judgments reinforcing the principle against entertaining belated claims for DOB correction due to acquiescence, undue delay, and laches.

The applicant's request for correction of his date of birth was effectively rejected due to the extreme delay in raising the issue and the lack of a proper valid document to substantiate his claim against the official records.

The Original Application No. 711/2020 was accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.