WP(C) 1573/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY Amitava Roy, J In challenge is the judgment and order dated 29.4.2010 rendered by the l earned Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (for short, hereinafter re ferred to as ’the Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 241 of 2009 holding tha t the respondent (original applicant) had been superannuated on the basis of his incorrect date of birth and consequently directing the petitioners herein to re instate him in service and to release to him all consequential benefits. 2. We have heard Mr NJ Dutta, learned Central Govt. counsel for the petitio ners and Ms NS Thakuria, learned counsel for the respondent/ original applicant. 3. Sans unnecessary details the facts in bare essentials for the disposal o f the instant appeal are that the respondent was initially appointed as Vocal Me chanic on 4.2.1972 at the Advance Base Workshop, EME, Narengi, Guwahati and foll owing successive transfers was on 10.9.87 transferred to the Central Ordnance De pot, Cheeoki, Allahabad. The respondent’s pleaded version was that at the time o f joining service he had produced a School Leaving Certificate dated 31.12.1971 issued by the Headmaster, Dorakahara Govt. Aided ME School disclosing therein hi s age to be 18 years 2 months and 28 days as on 31.12.1970. The respondent claim ed that the date of birth was accordingly entered in the service book as 28.6.19 52 on the basis of that document. When by the letter dated 27.6.2008 the Command ant, Central Ordnance Depot, Cheeoki, Allahabad sought clarification from him wi th regard to his date of birth, he insisted it to be 28.6.1952. The respondent/a pplicant, however, alleged that at that point of time the Personnel Officer (Civ il) coerced him to state his date of birth as 4.2.1949. He further alleged that thereafter on 4.11.2008 this authority formally took his signature on a typed le tter where it was written that he (respondent/applicant) had requested him (resp ondent authority) to correct his date of birth as 4.2.1949 in lieu of 28.6.1952. Being shocked and perplexed on this turn of events, the respondent/ applicant o n 15.2.2008 submitted a representation before the Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot, Cheeoki, Allahabad disclosing the above episode and maintaining that his date of birth ought to be sustained as 28.6.1962. His request not having been ac ceded to and as it was decided to superannuate him on the basis of his date of b irth -4.2.1949, he approached the learned Tribunal for redress. 4. The petitioners in their counter pleaded lack of its jurisdiction in ent ertaining the application as the cause of action had arisen beyond its territori al limits. They stated that on a scrutiny of the medical examination report date d 4.2.1972, the age of the applicant on that date was ascertained to be 23 years . It also transpired on enquiry that the resultant date i.e. 4.2.49 was altered and overwritten to be 28.6.1952 in his service book de hors any supporting docum entary evidence to that effect. The respondents, therefore, accepted the applica nt’s date of birth to be 4.2.1949 and took necessary initiatives for his superan nuation on the basis thereof. According to them, he eventually retired from serv ice from Allahabad on the basis of his aforementioned date of birth. While admit ting that in various documents/ forms preserved by its different Units his date of birth was recorded therein to be 28.6.1952, the petitioners contended that th e alteration was wholly without any basis and, in particular, without the approv al of the competent authority in violation of the instructions contained in O.M. No. F.9/1/61-Estt (A) dated 17.11.1962. According to them, therefore, the appli cant was asked to clarify his actual date of birth whereupon he produced the Sch ool Leaving Certificate dated 31.12.1971. The petitioners asserted that in terms of the said certificate his date of birth was computable to 3.10.1952 and not 2 8.6.1952 as claimed by him. The petitioners also maintained that the applicant’s claim of his date of birth to be 28.6.1952 on the basis of the contemporaneous records was examined by the Head of the Department, Director General of Ordnance Services, Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) and was eventua lly rejected on 21.1.2009. 5. The learned Tribunal, however, sustained the challenge made by t he respondent/ applicant on the following grounds:- i) Pass No. D00478 bearing Personal No. 66491 dated 2.8.2007 mentioned his date of birth to be 28.6.1952. ii) The first page of his service book recorded the date of birth to be 28.6 .1952 and that the date 4.2.1949 written above the said entry was by way of corr ection but no basis thereof was disclosed. iii) The School Leaving Certificate supports the claim of the applicant that his date of birth is 28.6.1952. iv) The alteration of the date of birth from 28.6.1952 to 4.2.1949 at the fa g end of his career was not supported by any cogent material. 6. Mr Dutta while reiterating the plea of want of jurisdiction of the learn ed Tribunal, has without prejudice thereto, argued that a bare perusal of the Sc hool Leaving Certificate dated 31.12.1971 and the service book of the respondent /applicant would in unambiguous terms reveal that the claim of his date of birth to be 28.6.1952 is not substantiated thereby. According to him, the date 28.6.1 952, as the first page of the service book of the respondent/ applicant reveals that it had been written over the date 4.2.1949 and, thus, the learned Tribunal had grossly erred in law and on facts in interfering with his superannuation bas ed on his date of birth-4.2.1949. 7. Ms Thakuria per contra has argued that having regard to the lower rung o f service to which the respondent belonged, the suggested alteration of his date of birth from 4.2.1949 to 28.6.1952 is an impossibility and, thus, the plea to this effect raised on behalf of the petitioners is clearly unsustainable. The se rvice book of the respondent having remained in the custody of the competent aut hority all throughout his service tenure, he had no access thereto and, thus, th e purported allegation of alteration of his date of birth to his advantage is wh olly unfounded. According to her, as admittedly the contemporaneous documents/re cords pertaining to the respondent disclose his date of birth to be 28.6.1952, t he action of the concerned authorities in superannuating him from service by tak ing his date of birth to be 4.2.1949 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and that t he learned Tribunal having interfered therewith on a conscious and rational scru tiny of the materials on record, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have cautiously considered the rival pleadings and the arguments adva nced. Though Mr Dutta has laboured to impress upon us against the jurisdiction o f the learned Tribunal in entertaining the Original Application of the responden t/applicant, for the finding proposed on the merits of the debate, we are not in clined to advert thereto in praesenti. That the age of the respondent on 4.2.197 2 on the completion of the medical examination by the Regimental Medical Officer of 1, Advance Base Workshop EME-C/o 99 APO was adjudged to be 23 years is a mat ter of record. Reckoned therefrom his date of birth as 4.2.1949 is an inevitable deduction. According to the petitioners, on the completion of 25 years of servi ce of the respondent, his service book was referred to the audit authority and i n course of the exercise undertaken thereafter the incompatability of the two da tes was noticed. In reply to the clarification sought for from the respondent, h e produced the School Leaving Certificate dated 31.12.1971 and the age referred to therein suggested his date of birth to be 3.10.1952. 9. A plain perusal of the first page of the service book of the respondent would reveal that his date of birth as 28.6.1952 has been overwritten on an earl ier date i.e. 4.2.1949. The date 4.2.1949 has also been written afresh above 28. 6.1952 encircled by ink. The entry 28.6.1952 as above clearly suggests an altera tion and, that too, to the advantage of the respondent in clear terms. Having re gard to the above referred facets of the controversy, we are of the unhesitant o pinion that the date of birth of the respondent as originally entered to be 4.2. 1949 had been altered subsequently to 28.6.1952 for his benefit. This aspect of the matter was left out of consideration by the learned Tribunal. The fact that this date i.e. 28.6.1952 does not match with the date computable from the School Leaving Certificate also has not been taken note of. The mere fact that the res pondent’s date of birth as 28.6.1952 had appeared in some documents per se does not detract from the finding that the original date of birth i.e. 4.2.1949 had b een substituted by the latter i.e. 28.6.1952 as is apparent from his service boo k. The entry in the service book also does not disclose the reason why the alter ation had been made. This assumes significance in the face of the categorical as sertion made by the petitioners that this alteration had been made without the a pproval of any competent authority. 10. On a consideration of all above, we are of the view that the impugned ju dgment and order is unsustainable in law and on facts. The alteration in the ori ginal date of birth of the respondent i.e. 4.2.1949 being apparently noticeable on the face of the record, his plea that that this date had not been originally recorded does not commend for acceptance. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity with th e action of the petitioners in superannuating the respondent from service on the basis of his date of birth accepted to be 4.2.1949. 12. The petition is, thus, allowed. 13. The impugned judgment and order is interfered with and is set aside. The petitioners, however, would release all retiral benefits to the respondent as d ue to him in law. No costs.