Correction of Date of Birth in Service Records Cannot Be Agitated at the Fag End of Career.

The petitioner, appointed as a Homeguard Sainik in 1981, challenged an order dated 13.10.2022 which rejected his representation to change his Date of Birth (DOB) in his service records from 13.11.1962 to 13.11.1964.

The dispute was raised only after the petitioner received a retirement notice dated 31.12.2021 informing him of his superannuation effective 12.11.2022.

The petitioner relied on a Middle School mark sheet (issued in 2022) and school certificates to claim the 1964 date.

The State contended that at the time of appointment in 1981, the petitioner submitted a declaration and affidavit specifying his DOB as 13.11.1962, which matched his PAN card and original School Leaving Certificate.

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

2. Whether the petitioner provided conclusive evidence to prove that the entry in the service book was a result of manipulation or clerical error requiring interference under Article 226.

Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code, which stipulates that the DOB declared at the time of entry into service is final and no amendment shall be allowed later except in cases of clerical errors.

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedents of State of M.P. v. Prem Lal Shrivas (AIR 2011 SC 3418) and State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble (2010) 14 SCC 423, which established that courts must discourage alterations to DOB at the eve of superannuation to prevent "chain reactions" affecting seniority and promotions of others.

The court cited Factory Manager, Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Laxman (2020) 3 SCC 419 regarding the doctrine of laches in DOB disputes.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had remained silent for nearly 40 years, having signed a declaration and affidavit in 1981 affirming his DOB as 13.11.1962.

The Court found the petitioner’s oral arguments regarding "manipulation" of the service book unsubstantiated, noting that the DOB was recorded clearly in words ("Thirteenth November Nineteen Sixty-Two").

Evidence produced by the petitioner (mark sheets and certificates) was deemed unreliable as they were "Second Copies" obtained in 2022, long after the dispute arose.

Applying the settled law, the court held that any such correction at the point of retirement is impermissible unless a clear case of "real injustice" or clerical error is made out, which the petitioner failed to prove.

The court upheld the order dated 13.10.2022 and dismissed the writ petition, ruling that there was no merit in the claim for correction of the date of birth at the fag end of the service career.