JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.

( 1 ) ). Leave granted.

( 2 ) ). The respondent had entered into the service as a Probationary Deputy Surveyor in Revenue Department of Madras Province on 12/1/1952. In his service record, his date of birth, as recorded in his Secondary School Leaving Certificate was 15/8/1933. His SSLC book contained a declaration of his father, as was the procedure in vogue, that the respondents date of birth was 15/8/1933. While the respondent was working as an Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, he was due to retire on attaining theage of superannuation of 58 years on 31/8/1991. On 14/8/1990, i. e. , a year before retirement he made a representation to the government, the appellant, staling, inter alia, that his father had inadvertently recorded his date of birth as 15/8/1933 in the school register but, in fact, his actual date of birth was 15/8/1935 and sought for its alteration enclosing certain birth certificates claiming to be of his sisters, brothers and of himself. The government after examining his case rejected his request by letter dated 30/8/1991. On an application filed in the Administrative tribunal, he contended that before rejecting the application, he was not provided with an opportunity of hearing, nor the order contained any reasons, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The tribunal in the order dated 1/12/1992 while setting aside the order, directed the government to dispose of respondents representation by giving reasons and an opportunity of hearing. The government after complying with the direction and consideration of the case again rejected the claim by its GOMs No. 271 dated 31/3/1993. The respondent challenged that order by filing OA No. 1993 of 1993 and the tribunal by the impugned order dated 1/9/1993 again allowed the petition and directed to extend respondents service by two years which would be counted from the date of his joining duty since the respondent was superannuated on 31/8/1991. The intervening period was directed to be dealt with in such a manner as not to constitute a break in service as it would affect his service benefits. It also held that the respondent is eligible to draw his provident fund and other superannuation benefits like gratuity, special provident fund and family benefit fund and commutation of pension only after his superannuation in terms of the tribunals order and that if the respondent had already drawn these amounts, the State would be entitled to deduct interest at the rate of one per cent per month at the end of the extended tenure from the amounts due and payable to him.

( 3 ) ). The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Mr K. V. S. Raghavan contended that the tribunal had appreciated the evidence and held that the reasons given by the government to reject the claim of the respondent for correction of his date of birth, are unsound. The discrepancies pointed out by the government were not on material particulars and of no consequence and they were minor discrepancies regarding names of the parents, addresses, etc. They do not cast doubt on the registration of respondents date of birth. Since the tribunal had appreciated the evidence and found the date of birth to be 15/8/1935, the case does not warrant interference. Placing reliance on the letter dated 21/8/1990 issued by the government intimating the departments that Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules (in short rules) was prospectively introduced in the year 1961 prescribing a limitation of five years for seeking correction of the date of birth after entering into the service and applications made thereafter shall be summarily rejected, amounts to conceding that the respondent had no prior opportunity to have it corrected. In the light of the directions issued by the Administrative tribunal, in an earlier case. government conceded andpermitted the authorities to have the date of birth corrected within five years from that date. Since the