JUDGMENT

N. P. SINGH, J.:—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is on behalf of the Commissioner, Home Department, and the Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu, for setting aside an order dated November 3, 1992 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") directing the alteration of the date of birth of the respondent in the service records.

3. In the year 1958, the respondent entered in the police service as Sub-Inspector of Police. In due course, he was promoted to the posts of Inspector of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police. According to thedate of birth recorded in his service register, he was to superannuate on 8-8-1992. On 6-8-1991, the said respondent filed an application before the Tribunal for an order to alter his date of birth recorded as 9-8-1934 to 9-8-1936. That application was rejected giving an option to the respondent to approach the Government under the appropriate service rules. A representation to that effect was made, which was rejected on 2-4-1992 and copy of the said order was communicated by the Director General of Police. Thereafter, an application was filed before the Tribunal, making prayer for a direction to alter the date of his birth. On 9-9-1992 the Tribunal passed an interim order directing the appellants to allow the respondent to continue. Ultimately, by the impugned order, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the date of birth of the respondent was 9-8-1936 and he shall superannuate with reference to that date.

4. Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit which is said as date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement and for calculating the date of retirement, it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. But, of late a trend can be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of their retirement raise a dispute about their dates of birth recorded in the service records, by either invoking the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or by filing applications before the concerned Administrative Tribunals, for adjudication as to whether the dates of birth recorded were correct or not.

5. Most of the States have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth in the service record is to be dealt with and what procedure is to be followed. In many such rules a period has been prescribed within which if any public servant makes any grievance in respect of error in the recording of his date of birth, the application for that purpose can be entertained. The sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction, of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades, especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. In the case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka, (1970) 3 SCC 624, this Court said that the date of the compulsory retirement "must in our judgment, be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected consistently with the appropriate procedure." This Court in the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagree v. Sarma, (1990) 2 SCC 682, had occasion to examine the A. P. Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984. The public servant concerned had claimed correction of his date of birth with reference to the births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal corrected the date of birth as c