Request for correction of date of birth in service records at the fag end of service is legally unsustainable.

The applicant was engaged as a casual worker on January 27, 1975, with his date of birth (DOB) initially recorded in the Casual Labour Card and other internal documents as July 20, 1954

He was granted temporary status in 1980.

However, following a Screening Committee report dated August 17, 1989, his DOB was recorded as June 30, 1951, allegedly based on an educational certificate

The applicant claimed he only discovered this discrepancy in 2008 via an official letter and subsequently submitted multiple representations for correction

The respondents maintained that the 1951 date was legally valid, reflected in the 1989 panel list used for regularization, and corroborated by the applicant’s own signature on a 2011 declaration for railway passes

The applicant was retired on June 30, 2011, based on the 1951 entry, leading to the present application seeking correction of records and consequential service benefits

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the correction of his date of birth in service records from June 30, 1951, to July 20, 1954, after the conclusion of his service period

2. Whether the applicant’s retirement on June 30, 2011, based on the contested date of birth, was illegal or arbitrary

The Tribunal applied the settled legal principle that a government servant cannot seek correction of their date of birth at the "fag end" of their career or after a long lapse of time

It relied on Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993), which established that while a servant may request a correction, they must do so without unreasonable delay, as the law of limitation applies to those who sleep over their rights

It further cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas (2011), emphasizing that courts must be cautious and circumspect when considering DOB corrections on the eve of superannuation to prevent administrative uncertainty

Finally, it invoked Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020), reiterating that requests for DOB changes at the end of service are unsustainable

The Tribunal found that the Screening Committee report dated August 17, 1989, which recorded the applicant's DOB as June 30, 1951, served as the basis for his regularization into service

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant joined regular service based on this report, it is presumed he had knowledge of its contents at the time of publication

The applicant failed to challenge this entry for nearly two decades, raising his first representation only in 2008

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's plea of illiteracy, noting that the 1989 report specifically referenced an educational certificate provided by him

It was determined that by failing to seek timely correction, the applicant had acquiesced to the 1951 date

Consequently, applying the precedents against "fag end" litigation, the Tribunal held that the recorded date had attained finality and could not be disturbed decades later

It further ruled that the respondents' action in retiring the applicant on June 30, 2011, was neither illegal nor arbitrary as it was based on the validly maintained service record

The Original Application was dismissed, and all associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of with no order as to costs