Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
U Rajasekaran vs Ut Of Puducherry on 28 May, 2025
1 OA No.310/00737/ 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00737/2022
Dated this the 28th day of May, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
U. Rajasekaran,
S/o Outtirabady,
Superintendent of Police (Cmt.) PAP, ''A' Company,
Gorimedu,
Puducherry .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. V. Ajayakumar
Vs.
1. Union of India
rep by The Chief Secretary to Government,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
2. The Director General of Police,
Police Department, Puducherry .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, GP of Puducherry
2 OA No.310/00737/ 2022
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) Aggrieved by the rejection of his request for alteration of date of birth in his Service Book by the impugned order, dated 29.07.2021, the applicant has filed the OA for setting aside the same and for a direction to the respondents to enter 03.03.1006 as his date of birth instead of 01.05.1965 and to render justice.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:
The Applicant submits that he joined the Police Service as a Sub-
Inspector on 02.02.1996 and was subsequently promoted to the rank of Inspector on 09.07.2009. His date of birth has been erroneously recorded in the Service Records as 01.05.1965, whereas his actual date of birth is
03.03.1966. The Applicant contends that this discrepancy is evident from the fact that his elder brother was born on 18.02.1964, making it implausible for the Applicant to have been born on 01.05.1965, within just over a year. He further states that his correct date of birth, 03.03.1966, was duly registered with the authorities on 07.03.1966, which establishes the authenticity of this date and confirms that it was not altered for the purpose of availing any service-related benefits. The Applicant made a representation for correction of his date of birth on 26.11.2014, but it was 3 OA No.310/00737/ 2022 not acted upon by the concerned authorities. He also approached the school authorities to rectify the inadvertent error in his school certificate, but this too did not yield any result. As the Applicant is due to retire on 31.05.2025, he submits that he is entitled to have his date of birth corrected. The refusal to do so is arbitrary and unjust, prompting him to file the present Original Application .
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was born on 03.03.1966, and this date of birth was duly registered with the competent Registering Authority on 07.03.1966 under Registration No. N/1966/00044. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to have the incorrect entry in his service records rectified. The denial of such correction is arbitrary, discriminatory, and legally unsustainable. He further submits that the prompt registration of the birth on 07.03.1966 clearly indicates that the birth certificate was not procured at a later stage for the purpose of availing any undue service benefits.
4. The counsel further submitted that the applicant was admitted to the 1st Standard in June 1971, which aligns with him having completed five years of age as of 03.03.1966. This demonstrates that no undue advantage was obtained due to the erroneous date of birth. The applicant progressed 4 OA No.310/00737/ 2022 through his education without any breaks, reinforcing the authenticity of the registered date. The counsel further argues that the impugned order rejecting the applicant's request for correction is untenable. An employee is entitled to have clerical or factual mistakes in official records corrected, especially when such errors are attributable to the authorities. The rejection of the request on the sole ground of delay is unjustified, particularly when the applicant has approached the authorities before retirement. Accordingly, the applicant prays for the relief sought in the present Original Application.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the submissions made by the applicant. He submitted that, in accordance with the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms Notification No. 19017/1/2014-Estt(A-IV) dated 16.12.2014, any request for correction of date of birth in the service records must be made within five years of entry into Government service. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Harnam Singh [Civil Appeal No. 502 of 1993, dated 09.02.1996], wherein the Court observed:
"The inordinate and unexplained delay or laches on the part of the Government Servant to seek the necessary correction would in any case have justified the refusal of relief to him. His action for all this period of 35 years from the date of joining the 5 OA No.310/00737/ 2022 service, therefore, precludes him from showing that the entry of his date of birth in the service record was not correct."
6. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant made a representation to the respondents on 07.07.2021 requesting a change of date of birth from 01.05.1965 to 03.03.1966. This representation was made after a lapse of 25 years from the applicant's entry into service and is therefore clearly barred under the DoPT instructions dated 16.12.2014. He added that the applicant's Service Book was opened in 1997, and the applicant himself signed under Column 12 of the Service Book on 27.08.1997, which was duly authenticated by the competent authority. Furthermore, in the family details submitted by the applicant on 04.11.2004 in Form 3 under Rule 54(12) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, his date of birth is again recorded as 01.05.1965, and this document too bears the applicant's signature.
7. In view of the above facts, the learned counsel argued that the applicant's claim lacks merit and cannot be entertained at this stage. He therefore prayed for the dismissal of the Original Application .
8. We have considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel 6 OA No.310/00737/ 2022 on both the sides, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
9. Both parties, in unison, informed this Court that there is no dispute with respect to the factual aspects of the case. The core issue that arises for consideration in the present matter is whether the applicant is entitled to seek correction or alteration of his date of birth after the same has been duly entered into the service records. The determination of this issue hinges upon the relevant rules, government notifications, and judicial precedents governing the correction of service record entries, particularly in relation to the permissible time frame and the obligations placed on the employee to seek such correction within a stipulated period.
10. It is well settled that while a birth certificate containing the correct date of birth is generally conclusive and not subject to alteration, exceptions may exist in cases where the birth was incorrectly registered or there is a genuine discrepancy between the birth certificate and other official records, such as school certificates. However, in the context of government service, such corrections are not typically permitted at the fag end of a career or after an inordinate lapse of time.
7 OA No.310/00737/ 2022
11. As per G.O.Ms.No.1288, Public (Services) Department, dated 21.04.1975, any correction to the date of birth recorded in service documents must be sought within five years from the date of entry into service. Based on this rule, it follows that an applicant is afforded a maximum period of five years from the commencement of this Government Order to seek rectification, provided they were already in service at the time. Therefore, a reasonable interpretation of the rule must take into account the circumstances of employees who were nearing retirement on the date the Government Order came into effect, as they would not be expected to wait an additional five years to claim correction. The intent of the rule is clear: any request for correction in the service register must be made within a reasonable time from the date of joining. Accordingly, the legal position may be summarized as follows:
(a) Any application for correction of date of birth shall be entertained only if it is submitted within five years of entry into service and is supported by the documents specified under Rule 49(c).
(b) Any application submitted after five years of service or one that is not supported by the requisite documents under Rule 49(c), even if submitted within five years, shall be summarily rejected.
12. We would like to extract certain judgements on the issue of 8 OA No.310/00737/ 2022 alteration of date of birth in service records. In State of T.N., Vs T.V.Venugopalan ( 1994 (6) SCC 302), the Supreme Court, held as follows:
"It is true that a government servant has a right to seek correction of the date of birth as entered in the service record by placing unimpeachable evidence before the competent authority and the authority is enjoined to enquire into and pass appropriate orders in that behalf, but it must be in accordance with the rules and in the manner prescribed therein. It is well known that the service record would be opened after the government servant enters the service and normally the entry in the service record would be countersigned by the government servant. The date of birth as entered in the school record (Matriculation, Secondary School Leaving Certificate or HSC or Board Exams, whatever may be the name of the certificate from an institution in which the candidate had undergone course of study, be it in the primary or secondary educational institutions), is the source material for making entry in the service record. The object of the rule or statutory instructions issued under proviso to Article 309 or orders issued by the Government under Article 162, for the correction of the date of birth entered in the service record, is that the Government employee, if he has any grievance in respect of any error of entry of date of birth, will have an opportunity, at the earliest, to have it corrected. Its object also is that correction of the date of birth beyond a reasonable time should not be encouraged. Permission to reopen accepted date of birth of an employee, especially on the eve or shortly before the superannuation of the government employee, would be an impetus to produce fabricated record."
13. In Union of India Vs Kantilal Hematram Pandya , (1995) 3 SCC 17), a similar issue arose for consideration in a case involving a railway servant who had entered service in the year 1955. In various documents 9 OA No.310/00737/ 2022 executed in 1960 and 1980, he consistently mentioned the same date of birth as recorded in his service book. The Railway Board had provided an opportunity in 1972 for all employees to seek correction of their date of birth, with the deadline fixed as 31.07.1973. However, the employee made representations only in 1985 and 1987 well after the stipulated time and failed to produce any reliable evidence or offer a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay. He claimed that his actual date of birth was 04.09.1934, not 06.09.1930 as recorded. He thereafter filed an Original Application before the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal, which ruled in his favour. The matter was subsequently challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Upon examining the record, the Apex Court, at paragraph 9 of the judgment, held as follows: -
"9.A bare or cursory look at the above document shows that the certificate was issued on 19-9-1988, just a few days prior to the date of superannuation of the respondent on the basis of his recorded date of birth and appeared to be a document brought into existence for the benefit of the pending proceedings. The CPO, therefore, rightly did not place reliance on the said certificate. The copy of the certificate, as already noticed had been issued in 1988. The Tribunal, as a matter of indulgence, directed the respondent on 15-2-1993 to obtain an affidavit from the headmaster of the school disclosing the date on which the original certificate was issued as also why the copy was issued in 1988, but no such affidavit was produced for reasons best known to the respondent. In spite of this lacuna, the Tribunal erroneously relied upon the said certificate, the correctness and genuineness of which was not free from doubt to grant relief to the respondent. The 10 OA No.310/00737/ 2022 material on the record established that after filing the option forms declaring his date of birth as 6-9-1930, in 1960, and after the filing of the Provident Fund withdrawal form on 20-2-1980, the respondent made his representation for correction of date of birth in 1985 and 1987 but failed to substantiate his claim through any reliable and trustworthy documentary evidence. He allowed the matter to rest till he neared the age of superannuation. The respondent slept over his rights to get the date of birth altered for more than thirty years and woke up from his deep slumber on the eve of his retirement only. The law laid down by this Court in Harnam Singh case, reported in 1993 (2) SCC 162 was, thus, fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the respondent and the Tribunal failed to follow the same without even pointing out any distinguishing features on facts. Stale claims and belated applications for alteration of the date of birth recorded in the service-book at the time of initial entry, made after unexplained and inordinate delay, on the eve of retirement, need to be scrutinised carefully and interference made sparingly and with circumspection. The approach has to be cautious and not casual. On facts, the respondent was not entitled to the relief which the Tribunal granted to him. The order of the Tribunal is erroneous and the directions issued by it cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the Tribunal and allow this appeal. No costs."
14. Furthermore, in the unreported Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court dated 13.08.2015 in Sundaramurthy v. The Chief Secretary (W.P. No. 24989 of 2015), the Court dealt in detail with the legal principles governing the alteration of date of birth, including the line of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject. It was consistently held that applications seeking correction of date of birth 11 OA No.310/00737/ 2022 must also be examined from the perspective of the concerned department and its functioning. Such changes, if allowed belatedly, can adversely impact the expectations of other employees regarding promotions and disrupt the administrative structure. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable for the State to require that such applications be submitted within the time limit prescribed under the relevant rules such as the five-year period applicable in the present case.
15. In the present case, the applicable rule clearly mandates that any request for correction of date of birth must be made within five years from the date of initial appointment. The applicant has failed to provide any valid or convincing justification for the inordinate delay in approaching the competent authority with such a request.
16. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant did not take any steps to correct his date of birth in the school records. Allowing the requested correction at this stage would lead to an anomalous situation where different dates of birth appear in the applicant's High School Leaving Certificate (HSLC) and service records a situation that is impermissible in law and administratively untenable.
12 OA No.310/00737/ 2022
17. For the reasons discussed above, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicant has failed to establish any legally sustainable ground warranting interference. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.07.2021 is upheld, and the Original Application is dismissed as being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
28. 05.2025
mas