The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an employee cannot alter the recorded date of birth after retirement.
The case concerned a man who worked at a pulp drawing processor manufacturing unit from 1983 until his retirement in 2006. Although he had verbally provided his date of birth as March 30, 1952, at the time of hiring, he did not submit any proof. The employer recorded his date of birth as March 10, 1948, based on his provident fund details and a school certificate, which meant he retired at age 58 in 2006.
After retirement, the man obtained a birth certificate showing March 30, 1952, as his date of birth. He then requested reinstatement or eligibility for benefits up to 2010, arguing he should have retired four years later. The employer rejected his request, asserting that the recorded date was accurate and that he had already accepted his retirement benefits without any prior objections.
The man first took his case to the Labour Court, which dismissed it. He subsequently appealed to the High Court. Justice M.G.S. Kamal, who heard the case, noted that the man questioned his date of birth two years after retirement, which cast doubt on his claim.
The court referenced a Supreme Court ruling that prohibits changing a date of birth after retirement, especially if the employee had the opportunity to correct it earlier but failed to do so. The court upheld the recorded date of birth in the provident fund, which matched the man’s school records, as final.
Given that the man did not dispute his retirement at the time and had accepted his benefits, the court ruled that his claim was an attempt to gain an unfair advantage. The petition was dismissed, with the court stating that an employee cannot seek to change their date of birth after a significant amount of time has passed, especially post-retirement.
