Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
N Baskaran vs Home Affairs on 11 September, 2025
1 OA No.310/00356 /2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00356/2022
Dated this the 11th day of September, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
N. Baskaran,
S/o Neerathi Lingam,
No.8, DCP Quarters, Block -1,
EVR Salai, Kilpauk,
Chennai .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. M. Vaidyanathan
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep by The Additional Chief Secretary
Home, (Police) -1, Department,
Fort St George,
Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai.
3. Union of India
rep by Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
4. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration
Rep by its Chief Secretary,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. K. H. Ravikumar for R1, R2 & R4)
Mr. K. Rajendran, SCGSC for R3
2 OA No.310/00356 /2022
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"to pass an order directing the respondents to correct the date of birth of the applicant as 01.07.1963 as ascertained by the 4th respondent and continue his service and grant all benefits that the applicant is entitled to as per the above date of birth and render justice and pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal think fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice"
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:
The Applicant submits that he was directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Tamil Nadu Police Service and joined service on 16.12.1991. His date of birth was erroneously recorded in school records as 26.04.1962 instead of the correct date, 26.10.1963. To rectify this, the Applicant filed Suit O.S. No. 370 of 1995 before the District Munsiff, Cuddalore. The suit was initially decreed ex parte on 08.11.1995, correcting his date of birth to 26.10.1963. Pursuant to this, the Applicant submitted a representation on 02.12.1995 to the 2nd Respondent through the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, requesting correction of his date of birth in the service records. However, after the ex parte decree was set aside, the suit was ultimately dismissed. The Applicant's appeal against the dismissal was also rejected. Despite this, he submitted another 3 OA No.310/00356 /2022 representation on 02.12.1995 seeking the same correction. On 26.03.2015, the 2nd Respondent rejected his representation. Consequently, the Applicant filed O.A. No. 696/2015 before this Tribunal, seeking to quash the order dated 26.03.2015 and to recognize his correct date of birth as 26.10.1963. The Tribunal disposed of the OA on 21.08.2019, directing the competent authority to consider the Applicant's representation dated 15.07.2014 and pass a speaking order in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations within three months of receiving the order. On 10.02.2020, the competent authority once again rejected the request, citing that the application had not been made within five years of the Applicant's entry into service. The Applicant then filed O.A. No. 400/2020 before this Tribunal. By its order dated 21.06.2021, the Tribunal granted the Applicant a final opportunity to submit all necessary documents, which were to be reviewed by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. The Commissioner was directed to conduct an enquiry and issue a report under Section 59(1) read with Sub-section (2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. Until a final decision was made, the impugned order dated 10.02.2020 was kept in abeyance.
Following the enquiry, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, after examining all relevant documents, passed a final order fixing the Applicant's date of birth as 01.07.1963 instead of 26.04.1962. Despite the 4 OA No.310/00356 /2022 Commissioner's order, the Respondents have not taken any further action. Therefore, the Applicant has approached this Tribunal once again by way of the present OA, seeking appropriate relief.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant is that the Applicant had approached this Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 400/2020. After considering the detailed counter filed by the Respondents, this Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had submitted the request for alteration of his date of birth within the five-year period stipulated under the relevant rules, specifically, Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (formerly Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules). Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Applicant to furnish all necessary documents to the 4th Respondent, who was to submit a report under Section 59(1) read with Sub-section (2) of the 2016 Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal also granted liberty to the Respondents to take an appropriate decision based on the said report.
4. He further submitted that, pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal, the 4th Respondent, after elaborate consideration, passed an order fixing the Applicant's date of birth as 01.07.1963. However, despite the report of 5 OA No.310/00356 /2022 the 4th Respondent, the Respondents proceeded to issue a rejection order on 28.04.2022, which reads as follows:
"As per the School records furnished by the individual, he has appeared for X1 standard exam during 1977-78 (with 6 subjects) as per SSLC (Elongated) certificate furnished by him, he has appeared for the said exam (with 5 subjects) during March 1978 and passed the same for which a certificate was issued to that effect on 15.05.1978. On the above, the Director of Government Examination, Chennai has concluded that the candidate Thiru N. Baskaran, IPS appeared as a regular candidate for the public examination (X)year Elongated course) which was conducted by the Directorate of government Examinations held in the month of March 1978 only once. Also, though the father of the applicant is a Government Servant of Tamil Nadu, he has not taken any steps to alteration of date of birth in respect of Thiru N. Baskaran, IPS., at the appropriate time.
As indicated by Director of Government Examinations, Chennai, Thiru N. Baskaran, IPS., is not eligible to take up SSLC examination, if his request for alteration of date of birth as 26.10.1963 instead of 26.04.1962 is accepted. As such acceptance of the request of Thiru N. Baskaran, IPS., would render him ineligible for appointment to Government Service as per the instructions issued by the Government letter third read above as directed by the High court of Madras in WP No.17792 of 2004."
5. He further drew our attention to the judgment dated 28.07.2021 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 9697 of 2020, wherein the Court considered the issue of alteration of date of birth in the case of Mr. J. Ganesan, who had retired as Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu. After examining the facts and circumstances of that case, the 6 OA No.310/00356 /2022 Hon'ble High Court made the following significant observations:
"The reasons assigned by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration in his report dated 08.12.1995 are also not put to effect which would invalidate the birth certificate issued in favour of the petitioner herein... Such objections are not based on 'intelligible differentia'... The prescription of 15 years as age, as a criterion to appear in the SSLC examination, is not mandatory but only directory in nature..."
The Court further held:
"The insignificant discrepancies pointed out by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration are not sufficient to invalidate the birth certificate issued by the Corporation... The first respondent herein had also mechanically reiterated the objections raised by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration... As such, the impugned order passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained."
Ultimately, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the alteration of the petitioner's date of birth in the service records from 15.08.1960 to 15.08.1962, along with consequential service benefits.
6. He submitted that the ratio laid down in the above judgment squarely applies to the present case and contended that the prescription of 15 years as age, as a criterion to appear in the SSLC examination is not mandatory but only directory in nature. Therefore, he prayed for the relief sought in the present OA.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently 7 OA No.310/00356 /2022 opposed the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant by relying upon the reply statement filed and the impugned order dated 28.04.2022.
8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the Respondents is that the Applicant failed to produce a birth certificate to substantiate his claim that his correct date of birth is 26.10.1963, instead of 26.04.1962. In the absence of such documentary proof, the 4th Respondent, in his report dated 09.03.2022, had to rely on Fundamental Rule 6 to determine the Applicant's date of birth as 01.07.1963. Furthermore, even assuming the date of birth as 01.07.1963 based on the 4th Respondent's report, the Applicant would have been only 14 years and 8 months old at the time of appearing for the 10th Standard examination. The matter was referred to the Director of Government Examinations, Chennai, who confirmed that the Applicant had passed the Old SSLC (11th Standard) examination in the year 1978, under Register No. 050011. As per the SSLC mark sheet, the Applicant's date of birth is recorded as 26.04.1962, which would make him 15 years old at the time of the examination, thereby satisfying the eligibility criteria. However, if the date of birth is taken as 26.10.1963, the Applicant would not have attained the minimum required age by March 1978, and consequently, would have been ineligible to appear for the examination.
8 OA No.310/00356 /2022
9. The learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that the Government, after thoroughly considering the Applicant's representation in light of this Tribunal's order dated 21.06.2021 in O.A. No. 400/2020, the instructions issued in Government Letter No.14914/S2/2018-1, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 18.07.2018, the 4th Respondent's report dated 09.03.2022, and the observations of the Director of Government Examinations, Chennai, in letters dated 12.04.2022 and 21.04.2022, rejected the Applicant's request for alteration of his date of birth from 26.04.1962 to 26.10.1963.
10. They further submitted that the Applicant was directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 16.12.1991 through the Tamil Nadu Police Service Commission. Subsequently, he was promoted to the Indian Police Service (IPS) under the promotion quota on 23.12.2003 by the Government of India, which accepted his date of birth as 26.04.1962. As the Applicant was appointed to the IPS, Rule 16A of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1971 becomes applicable, which reads as follows:
16 (4): "The date of birth as accepted by the Central government shall not be subject to any alteration except where it is established that a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed in accepting the date of birth under sub rule (2) or (3)".9 OA No.310/00356 /2022
11. They further submitted that the Applicant attained the age of superannuation on the afternoon of 30.04.2022, and was accordingly permitted to retire from the Indian Police Service, as per G.O. No. 580, Home (Police.I) Department, dated 29.04.2022. It was contended that accepting the Applicant's request at this stage would lead to administrative complications. In support of their stand, the Respondents relied on the following judgments and prayed for dismissal of the O.A:
(i) Judgment, dated 11.07.2017 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No.17792/2004.
(ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K.S. Sripathi IAS., Vs CAT, reported in CDJ 2008 MHC 3604
(iii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr. M. Arumugam Vs Registrar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, reported in (2012) 3 MLJ 594.
12. Heard the learned counsel on all sides at length, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. I have also carefully gone through the case laws referred to by them.
13, Before addressing the merits of the present matter, it is pertinent to refer to the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 400/2020, dated 21.06.2021, wherein directions were issued with respect to the 10 OA No.310/00356 /2022 Applicant's request for alteration of date of birth. The relevant observations and findings of the Tribunal are summarised below:
"Background of Civil Proceedings:
• The Applicant had obtained an ex parte decree in O.S. No. 370/1995 from the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore on 08.11.1995, permitting alteration of his date of birth. However, this was later challenged and dismissed on 25.01.2002 on appeal, on the ground that the Applicant had not produced sufficient evidence to prove his claimed date of birth (26.10.1963).
• The documents relied upon--such as a horoscope and a certificate regarding the marriage of the Applicant's parents issued by temple authorities--were found to be unreliable. The Court noted the absence of a birth certificate issued by the competent authority.
• It was further observed that the Applicant's father, a retired Tahsildar, would have been aware of the implications of declaring an incorrect date of birth at the time of school admission.
2. Dismissal of Further Appeals:
• The Additional District Judge, Cuddalore, in A.S. No. 2/2003, dismissed the appeal on 26.09.2003, holding that the date of birth recorded in school records (26.04.1962) aligned with the Applicant's academic progression.
• The Court observed that if the claimed date of birth (26.10.1963) were accepted, the Applicant would have been only 2 years and 6 months old at the time of entry into Class I and underage for appearing in the SSLC (11th Standard) examinations during 1977-78. This would undermine the validity of his entire educational and service record. • A further Second Appeal (C.M.P. No. 19594 of 2019) before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was also dismissed due to delay in filing.
3. Observations of the Tribunal:
• Although the Tribunal acknowledged that the Applicant had submitted his request for alteration of date of birth within five years of entering service (in accordance with the rules), the claim was found to be based on an ex parte decree which had subsequently been reversed at all appellate stages. • The Tribunal examined the reliance placed by the Applicant on 11 OA No.310/00356 /2022 • the judgment in W.A. No. 784/2019 (order dated 09.10.2020), wherein the Hon'ble High Court had allowed alteration of date of birth. However, it distinguished that case as factually different, particularly as it was based on production of genuine birth certificates and supporting documents, which were not presented in the present case.
4. Direction to Facilitate Final Opportunity:
• In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the Applicant one final opportunity to furnish all relevant documents in support of his claim.
• The matter was directed to be referred to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, who was to conduct an enquiry and submit a report under Section 59(1) read with sub-section (2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
• The impugned order dated 10.02.2020 was kept in abeyance, and the Respondents were given liberty to take an appropriate decision based on the Commissioner's report.
5. Disposal of Application:
• The O.A. was accordingly disposed of with the above directions. There was no order as to costs."
14. Based on the direction of this Tribunal, the 4 th respondent has passed the following order on 31.03.2022, which reads as under:
"10. The facts reverberated according to the report from revenue Divisional officer, Tenkasi and the documents submitted by the petitioner are as follows:
^ Based on the documents submitted by the petitioner, their parents marriage was held only on 21.06.1962 and that there was no possibility that the petitioner could have been born in 1962 ^ Based on the birth certificate of the petitioner's brother Mr. Ramaraj on 04.04.1965 the petitioner could not have also born in 1964 and that the petitioner ought to have born only in 1963 12 OA No.310/00356 /2022 Accordingly, as per General Rule 6 the below is mentioned:
"In the case of a Government servant the year of whose birth is known but not the date, the 1 st July should be treated as the date of birth, when both the year and the month of birth are known, but not the exact date, the 16 th of the month should be treated as the date of birth".
^ Therefore, since the petitioners birth month is not known and according to the documents produced and General rule 6, the petitioners date of birth is fixed as 01.07.1963. ^If the petitioners date of birth is fixed as 01.07.1963, then during March, 1978, as his then age was 14 years and 8 months on which the petitioners has written his SSLC.
11. Hence, it is recommended that the petitioners date of birth can be fixed as 01.07.1963 according to the Revenue Divisional Officers report (enclosed herewith) and according to the petitioner submitted documents (enclosed herewith) "
15. It is relevant to refer to the judgment, dated 30.01.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, passed in W.P. No. 26262 of 2012. It was held therein, that permitting the petitioner to alter his date of birth in the service records would lead to an incongruous situation, wherein the date of birth reflected in his service records would differ from that recorded in his school and HSSLC certificates, which is impermissible in law. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
"22. Disputes with regard to change of date of birth in service record have been considered by various High Courts 13 OA No.310/00356 /2022 and the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is settled law that "correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right."
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Home Deptt. Vs R. Kirubakaran, reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155, observed and held as under:
"7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever..."
24. In Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs T.P. Nataraja and others in Civil Appeal No.5720 of 2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized the law on change of date of birth, which is as under:
"(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation."
25. This Court is of the opinion that the application for change of date of birth made by the petitioner cannot be considered. Rules, 1984 do not permit for alteration of the 14 OA No.310/00356 /2022 date of birth entered in the service records. The entries made by the employee are final and binding and the employee is estopped from disputing the correctness of the date of birth. Rules do not permit alteration of date of birth on the basis of any judgement, decree or order of a Civil Court and no indulgence can be shown.
26. Entertaining the claim for correction of date of birth would completely frustrate the objective behind the Rules, 1984. The petitioner is unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of this Court either in law or on facts about the claim for alteration of date of birth. In view of the consistent legal position that the onus is on the applicant to prove about the wrong recording of the date of birth in the service records, the claim for the alteration cannot be entertained. It is settled law that "correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right."
27. The petitioner did not make any attempt to get the date of birth corrected in his school records. Upon correction of date of birth in the school records, petitioner could have got the same corrected in the HSSLC as well. However, even this was not done. Therefore, as of today, both in school/college records as well as in the HSSLC, petitioner's date of birth continues to be reflected as 29.03.1953. Permitting petitioner to correct his date of birth in service record would result in incongruous situation where there would be different dates recorded in his school records/HSSLC and service records, which is impermissible.
28. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.:"
16. In the present Original Application, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court in the judgments 15 OA No.310/00356 /2022 cited supra, this Tribunal is of the considered view that entertaining a claim for correction of date of birth at this stage would defeat the very purpose and object of the relevant service rules, including the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1984. The applicant has failed to establish, either on facts or in law, a justifiable basis for seeking alteration of his date of birth. It is a settled proposition of law that the burden lies squarely on the applicant to conclusively prove that the date of birth recorded in the service records is incorrect. In the absence of such proof, and in view of the consistent legal position that correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the applicant's claim is not legally sustainable.
17. Furthermore, the applicant has not taken any steps to have the date of birth corrected in his school records. It is evident from the record that the applicant's father was not an illiterate person but a government servant in the State of Tamil Nadu. Had the date of birth been genuinely incorrect, the applicant ought to have first sought rectification in his school records, which would have enabled corresponding correction in the SSLC certificate. However, no such effort was made. Consequently, the date of birth continues to be recorded as 26.04.1962 in the school, college, and SSLC records. Allowing the applicant to now alter his date of birth in the 16 OA No.310/00356 /2022 service records would result in an incongruous and legally impermissible situation, where his service records reflect a date of birth different from that recorded in his academic credentials.
18. In the above circumstance, this Tribunal finds the applicant has not made out a valid ground for the interference of the Tribunal to accede to his prayer in the OA.
19. In the result, the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs..
(M. SWAMINATHAN) MEMBER(J) mas 11. 09.2025