Correction of date of birth claims at service end fail where long unexplained delay and consistent official records prevail.

The central issue concerns correction of an employee's date of birth recorded in service records. The SC applied the principle that courts must be cautious in ordering late corrections at the fag end of service because such changes affect seniority and promotions; the onus is on the applicant to prove incorrect recording with irrefutable evidence and to explain delay. Given consistent official records over decades, earlier opportunities to rectify, and a belated representation and petition, the court found the correction claim unsustainable and set aside the High Court orders granting reliefs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in directing correction of the employee's date of birth in the service records and granting consequential reliefs despite the long delay in seeking correction and the employee's conduct during service.

Analysis: The employee's service records consistently recorded the date of birth as 04.03.1950 from the date of joining (1982), including in departmental nomination and provident fund forms (1998); an opportunity to verify/rectify records was available in 1987 but no correction was sought then. The representation for correction was first made in 2009, on the eve of retirement, and the writ petition was filed only in 2014, four years after retirement. Established precedents require courts to be cautious in ordering correction of date of birth at the fag end of service because such corrections can affect seniority and promotions of others; the onus lies on the applicant to prove wrong recording by irrefutable evidence and to explain delay. A subsequent verification from the school board, even if indicative, does not overcome the settled principle that belated claims after decades of accepting the recorded date and after opportunities for rectification are ordinarily unsustainable.

Conclusion: The petition for correction of date of birth and consequential reliefs is not maintainable on the facts; the High Court orders directing correction and awarding benefits are set aside. The appeal is allowed in favour of the appellants.

---