Correction of date of birth cannot be claimed at the fag end of service.

The petitioner, an Anganwadi Assistant at Anganwadi Centre, Kathkona, challenged the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by respondent No. 3 directing her to be relieved/retired on attaining 62 years of age.

The State’s Circular dated 23.05.2025 prescribed retirement of Anganwadi Workers and Assistants at the age of 62 years.

In the relevant departmental order, the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 09.10.1964 and her date of retirement as 31.10.2026.

The petitioner alleged that the date of birth had been recorded without reference to any authentic or contemporaneous service record and sought quashing of the order and correction of her date of birth.

The State opposed the petition, contending that a claim for correction of date of birth raised at the fag end of service was impermissible in law.

The petitioner admittedly had not previously sought correction of her date of birth during the earlier period of her service.

Whether the petitioner could seek correction of her recorded date of birth and challenge her retirement at the fag end of her service, despite not having sought correction earlier.

Whether the respondents’ determination of the petitioner’s retirement date on the basis of the recorded date of birth was legally sustainable.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution and the governing departmental circular prescribing retirement of Anganwadi personnel at 62 years.

Relying on State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477, Home Department v. R. Kerubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155, and Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162, the Court held that correction of date of birth cannot ordinarily be sought at the fag end of service; the employee bears the burden of proving an erroneous entry through conclusive material and must act within the prescribed or, absent such prescription, a reasonable period.

The Court further relied on Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. v. T.P. Nataraja, 2021 INSC 521, which summarised that an application for change of date of birth must comply with applicable rules, cannot be claimed as of right even on cogent evidence, and may be rejected for delay and laches, particularly near superannuation.

The same principle was reaffirmed through Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Ram Samugh Yadav, (2020) 3 SCC 421, and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411.

The Court treated the petitioner’s claim as a delayed attempt to alter the date of birth recorded in the service-related departmental record.

Although the petitioner alleged that the date of birth of 09.10.1964 lacked an authentic documentary basis, she had admittedly made no prior effort to secure its correction and approached the Court only when retirement was imminent.

Applying the settled rule against entertaining such claims at the fag end of service, the Court held that delay and laches defeated the claim, particularly because correction of the date of birth could affect the service and promotional rights of other employees.

The Court therefore found no ground to interfere with the respondents’ decision.

It held that the delayed challenge to the recorded date of birth and consequential retirement determination was not maintainable, and that the respondents had rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim in accordance with settled law.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.