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

The applicant was appointed as a Safai Karamchari with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in 2006

At the time of her medical examination in June 2006, the Chief Medical Officer assessed her age as 40 years, resulting in a recorded date of birth (DOB) of 29.06.1966 in her service records

The applicant signed her service book and GPF nomination forms confirming this date and served for nearly 19 years without objection

In March 2024, noticing her retirement date was set for June 2026, she sought rectification of her DOB to 05.02.1970 based on an Employment Exchange Identity Card from 1995

Following the rejection of her representation on 04.04.2024 and the issuance of a formal retirement notice on 23.03.2026, she filed the present O.A. and an M.A. seeking a stay on her retirement

1. Whether a government servant can seek the correction of their date of birth in service records at the "fag end" of their career after decades of acquiescence

2. Whether the Employment Exchange Identity Card constitutes conclusive evidence to override established service records and medical assessments made at the time of appointment

Fundamental Rule (FR) 56, which mandates retirement upon attaining the age of 60 years

Supreme Court precedent in State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. (2010), which establishes that Courts/Tribunals should not permit DOB corrections on the eve of superannuation as it causes "chain reactions" affecting the seniority and promotions of others

Equitable maxim Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt (Law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights), as supported by Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the 19-year delay in challenging her recorded DOB

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had consistently verified her service records, including the service book and GPF forms, through signatures or thumb impressions since 2006

The Tribunal observed that the Employment Exchange Card was not a foundational document for service purposes and could not override the medical assessment accepted at entry

Applying the ratio from R. Kirubakaran, the Bench emphasized that entertaining such belated claims at the "fag end" of service is a "gross error of law" and encourages the fabrication of records

The court reasoned that the applicant's sudden claim just before retirement was "suspicious" and lacked the "unimpeachable evidence" required to disturb official records after two decades

The Court affirmed the validity of the retirement notice dated 23.03.2026, ruling that the balance of convenience lay with the respondents

The applicant was not entitled to continue in service until 2030, and no costs were awarded