Employees cannot seek correction of their date of birth at the fag end of service.

The petitioner, a Junior Assistant appointed to GESCOM on compassionate grounds, sought to change his service-record date of birth from 1 July 1966 to 1 July 1971.

He relied on a transfer certificate and an order in Crl. Misc. No. 3284/2026; his SSLC marks card, however, recorded 1 July 1966.

GESCOM rejected his request by endorsement dated 5 August 2026.

The petitioner joined service in 1993, sought correction in 2015, and, according to the service record, retired on 30 June 2026; the Court also noted that he continued in employment under an interim order.

He petitioned under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the endorsement and obtain continued service until 30 June 2031.

Whether the petitioner could obtain correction of his date of birth in his service records when the request was made at the fag end of service and after his recorded date of superannuation.

Whether GESCOM’s endorsement rejecting the correction request warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

A request to correct a date of birth in service records must comply with the applicable rules or regulations; where none apply, it must be made within a reasonable time after entering service.

Correction is not claimable as of right merely because evidence supporting another date is produced, and delay—including a request made at the fag end of service—may independently justify rejection.

The Court relied on State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302, and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411, for the principles that belated date-of-birth claims may be rejected and that an employee who accepted the recorded date during service cannot ordinarily seek alteration at its end.

It also applied the principles discussed in Dr. Anisahmad v. Deputy Director of Public Records, W.P. No. 202428/2026, decided 19 September 2026.

The Court treated the timing of the request as decisive.

The petitioner had joined service in 1993, sought correction in 2015, and pursued the claim when he had reached—or, under the recorded date, passed—superannuation.

Although he relied on a transfer certificate and a Magistrate’s order, the SSLC marks card supported the date already entered in the service record.

Applying the rule against belated service-record changes, the Court held that the claim could not be entertained at the fag end of service; it also noted that changing the date could extend the petitioner’s service and affect promotional opportunities of other employees.

It dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit and declined to quash the endorsement or direct continuation of the petitioner’s service until 30 June 2031.