Strict proof for date of birth correction in service records, with stale claims and weak evidence rejected near retirement.

Correction of date of birth in service records must be sought within the prescribed time under the applicable service rules, and the recorded date of birth continues to govern superannuation unless lawfully altered. A belated request made near retirement was rejected because the evidence produced, including horoscope-based material, did not amount to unimpeachable proof of the claimed date of birth. The settled position requires strict proof for alteration of service particulars and discourages stale claims. The refusal to change the service record was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to correction of his date of birth in the service records notwithstanding the prescribed time limit and the nature of the evidence produced.

Analysis: The request for alteration of date of birth was made long after entry into service and on the verge of retirement, while Fundamental Rule 56 permits such correction only within the prescribed period. The recorded date of birth in the service record governs superannuation unless and until it is corrected in accordance with the applicable procedure. The materials relied upon, including horoscope-based evidence, did not constitute unimpeachable proof of the asserted date of birth. The settled law also requires strict proof and discourages stale claims for correction of service particulars.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to correction of the date of birth, and the refusal to alter the service record was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A request for correction of date of birth in service records must be made within the prescribed time and supported by reliable, unimpeachable proof; otherwise, the recorded date of birth remains operative for superannuation.

---