The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an employee cannot change the recorded date of birth after retirement.

The case involved a man who worked at a pulp drawing processor manufacturing unit from 1983 until he retired in 2006. When he was hired, he verbally gave his date of birth as March 30, 1952, but didn't provide any proof. The employer, however, recorded his date of birth as March 10, 1948, based on his provident fund details and a school certificate. This meant he retired at 58 in 2006.

After retirement, the man obtained a birth certificate showing March 30, 1952, as his date of birth. He then asked to be reinstated or be eligible to receive benefits up to 2010, arguing he should have retired four years later. The employer rejected his request, saying the recorded date was correct and that he had already accepted his retirement benefits without raising any issues.

The man first took his case to the Labour Court, which dismissed it. He then 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 retiring, which cast doubt on his claim.

The court also cited a Supreme Court ruling that prevents changing a date of birth after retirement, especially if the employee had a chance to correct it earlier but didn't.

The court found that the recorded date of birth in the provident fund, which matched the man's school records, was final.

Since the man did not dispute his retirement at the time and accepted his benefits, the court ruled that his claim was an attempt to gain an unfair advantage. The court dismissed the petition, stating that an employee cannot seek to change date of birth after a significant amount of time has passed, especially post-retirement.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.