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

The petitioner, Shyamraj Gadeshwar, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the respondents to correct his date of birth in his service record from 25.07.1967 to 25.07.1968.

The petitioner had already superannuated from service and contended that the incorrect entry affected his Provident Fund (P.F.) entitlements.

The record indicated that the petitioner first raised the dispute regarding his date of birth via a communication dated 11.07.2025, near the end of his career, with no prior evidence of dispute during his entire service tenure.

1. Whether a request for the correction of a date of birth in service records can be entertained when raised at the "fag end" of a career or after superannuation.

The court applied the principle that requests for change of date of birth at the end of service are unsustainable, as established by the Supreme Court in *Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Singh* (2020) 3 SCC 411.

This precedent incorporates the "fag end" doctrine from cases such as *State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble*, emphasizing that such corrections cause "chain reactions" affecting the seniority and promotion of others.

The court also relied on *State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas* (2011) 9 SCC 664, which holds that even if evidence of an error exists, a correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right if the employee has "slept over their rights" for decades.

The court distinguished the petitioner’s reliance on *Jagbandan Singh v. SECL*, noting that in that case, the employee raised an objection within seven years of induction, whereas the petitioner herein did not dispute the entry at any point during his "entire service career" until 2025.

The High Court observed that the petitioner failed to provide any explanation for the delay of several decades.

Applying the Bharat Coking Coal precedent, the court reasoned that allowing such a belated change would be contrary to settled law, as the onus is on the applicant to prove the error and seek correction within a reasonable timeframe or the period prescribed by rules.

Since the first request was made only on 11.07.2025, the court deemed the claim as being made at the "fag end" of service and thus impermissible.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioner regarding the correction of records or P.F. adjustments.