Requests By Government Employees For Change In Date Of Birth Beyond Reasonable Time Should Not Be Permitted: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Petition challenging the denial of the request for correction of the date of birth in service records.

The Bombay High Court held that requests by government employees for a change in date of birth beyond reasonable time should not be permitted.
The Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a Police Inspector (Petitioner) serving in the Pimpri-Chinchwad Police Commissionerate challenging the Judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) which denied his request for correction of his date of birth in service records.
A Division Bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice MM Sathaye held, “In such cases, where a government employee seeks to change his/her date of birth in the service record after spending considerable time of service or close to his retirement, where postponement of the date of birth is asked, it is obvious that it has far reaching effect, if permitted…In a given case, this can have bearing on the issue of eligibility itself. Also, when a government employee claims that he was born on a later date, it obviously has an effect on seniority at the time of appointment. In a given case, where a batch of employees is appointed on the same date, the seniority may change and such change in service book can adversely affect seniority of other co-employees.”
Senior Advocate AY Sakhar represented the Petitioner, while Assistant Government Pleader NK Rajpurohit appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
In 2022, the Petitioner secured an order directing the Gram Panchayat to record his birth date as 1968 instead of 1966. A new birth certificate was issued to him reflecting this change, and the modification was published in the Government Gazette in 2023. In January 2024, the Petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal, which rejected his request citing Rule 38(2)(f) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 1981 (the Rules).
Arguments by the Respondents
The State argued that Rule 38(2)(f) of the Rules prohibits altering the date of birth unless there is a clerical error by the government department. The Rule also stipulates that such a change must be requested within five years of entering service. The Respondents further contended that the petitioner did not pursue his request for over 25 years and sought the correction only close to his retirement, scheduled for May 2024.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court stated that an alteration in the entry of age or date of birth made in the service book is not permitted unless it is known that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual in question or is an obvious clerical error.
“In the present case, the Petitioner’s date of birth (01/06/1966) is recorded in the service book on his own Application and based on the information submitted by the Petitioner himself and therefore, this is not a case where the wrong entry is made due to want of care of person other than the Petitioner. It is also not a case of obvious clerical error,” it noted.
The Bench referred to the decision in Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran (1994), wherein the Supreme Court remarked, “In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their dates of birth in the service books.”
The Bench observed, “Therefore, the Petitioner having found slept over his case for about 25 years and framework under the Rules found fully applicable, the order of Magistrate cannot be held as binding upon the Respondents for change in birth date in the service book.”
Consequently, the Court held, "In our opinion, such situations must be avoided and therefore requests for change in date of birth beyond reasonable time should not be permitted. In the present case, it is 5 years under the applicable rule."
The Bench ordered, “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order in the exercise of our extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. This Petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Dnyaneshwar Baban Katkar v. The Director General and Inspector & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:4132-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate A.Y. Sakhare; Advocate Gaurav Bandiwadekar
Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader N.K. Rajpurohit