ORDER :

B.N. Kirpal, CJI.

Special leave granted.

2. In the present case, the appellant was appointed as a gangman on 22-4-1964 and the date of birth which was recorded was 14-6-1941. As per the school certificate his actual date of birth was 4-6-1945 and he made representation for correction of the date of birth. This first representation was made on 5-12-1970. He continued to make representations and supply documents as required by the respondents till 22-4-1974. After a gap of nearly 21 years the respondents wrote a letter to the appellant on 6-3-1995 asking for some more documents which as per the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was complied with. Ultimately, nothing was heard and on 5-1-2001 a cryptic order was passed in which it was observed as follows :

"With reference to your letter quoted above, it is advised that the request for change in date of birth 32 years after appointment and 6 months prior to retirement is not tenable and hence rejected."

3. The application of the appellant for relief before the Central Administrative Tribunal was unsuccessful because the Tribunal was of the view that the last representation was in 1974 and he has come to the Tribunal at the fag end of his retirement.

4. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are at a loss to understand as to how the appellant could have been non-suited on the ground of delay. He first represented against his wrong recording of the date of birth within six years of his joining service. Two years after his representation the Railway Board issued an office order dated 4-8-1972 inviting representations for correction of date of birth, this representation was filed. When no action was taken reminders were sent, the last reminder being of 22-4-1974. As we have already noticed 21 years thereafter the representation was not rejected but vide a letter dated 6-3-1995 certain more documents were asked for from the appellant. These documents were supplied. There was no lack of diligence on the part of the appellant. For the Tribunal to state that his last representation was in 1974 is not correct because pursuant to the respondents letter of 6-3-1995 the documents were supplied. Merely because the appellant did not want to litigate and sought relief from the respondents departmentally and as his application had not been rejected till the year 2001, 31 years after he had first made the representation the appellant cannot be regarded as not having acted diligently. On merits, the respondents have not stated that the date of birth of the appellant was not 4-6-1945 as per the school certificate. There is obviously an error committed by the respondents and the date of birth should have been corrected. On the other hand, the appellant has been driven to years of litigation for no fault of his.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed. The order dated 5-1-2001 is set aside. The appellant will be treated as being in service as per his date of birth being 4-6-1945. The appellant will be entitled to reinstatement and all consequential benefits including arrears of salary after deducting the terminal benefits if received by the appellant. This order shall be complied with within eight weeks from today.

The appellant will be entitled to costs.

Appeal allowed with costs.