Date of birth correction at the fag end of service is impermissible without unimpeachable and contemporaneous evidence.

The applicant was initially engaged as a part-time C.P. Mali in 1988, eventually becoming a full-time worker and being appointed as Multi-Tasking Staff (M.T.S.) in 2022.

The respondents issued a retirement memo on 22.01.2024, superannuating the applicant effective 31.01.2024 based on his recorded date of birth (DOB) of 07.01.1964.

The applicant challenged this order, claiming his actual DOB was 01.07.1970 based on a school leaving certificate, PRAN records, and an identity card issued in 2020.

The respondents argued that departmental records, including a 1996 certificate and a 2006 seniority list, consistently reflected the 1964 date.

Verification by the Block Education Officer revealed that the school which reportedly issued the applicant's certificate was only recognized in 2005 and closed in 2018, making the verification of the applicant's purported 1970s-era records impossible.

1. Whether the impugned retirement order dated 22.01.2024, based on the recorded date of birth in official service records, is legally sustainable.

2. Whether an employee is entitled to seek the correction of their date of birth at the "fag end" of their service career.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle of service jurisprudence that the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into service attains finality and cannot ordinarily be altered at the "fag end" of a career to secure an extension of service.

It relied on the Supreme Court of India precedents in State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas (2011) and LIC of India v. R. Basavaraju (2016), which mandate that any claim for DOB correction must be supported by unimpeachable and contemporaneous documentary evidence.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's official records, including the 2006 seniority list and 2022 promotion minutes, consistently recorded his DOB as 07.01.1964.

The applicant failed to dispute these entries for decades, only raising the issue just prior to his superannuation.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence—specifically the school leaving certificate—to be highly doubtful because the issuing institution did not have recognition during the period the applicant claimed to have studied there.

The Tribunal noted that it cannot conduct a "roving enquiry" into disputed facts when departmental records have been consistently maintained.

Since the request for correction was made at the end of the applicant's career without cogent evidence, the Tribunal determined the claim was a maneuver to secure an undue extension of service.

The court held that the respondents’ action in retiring the applicant on his recorded date of superannuation was neither arbitrary nor illegal.

All pending applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.