( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been referred to a bench by Gangadhara Rao, J, on the ground that the questions raised by it arise frequently and, therefore, an authoritative decision thereon is desirable.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an employee in the Post-Graduate Centre, Anantapur, which has been declared to be an autonomous institution with effect from 1/05/1976, in accordance with Act XVI of 1976. The petitioner initially joined the service of Sree Venkateswara University on 25/07/1960, as a Lecturer. On that occasion his date of birth was recorded as 1st June, 1919. He was transferred to the Post-Graduate Centre in April, 1976 - at that time under the Control of the University. He continued in the centre even after it was declared an autonomous institution. The age of superannuation in this Centre is sixty years. According to his date of birth recorded in the service-registers, the petitioner was to retire on 31/05/1979. Sometime before that, he instituted a suit O. S. No. 604 of 1978, on the file of the Court of District Munsiff, Anantapur, for a declaration that his correct date of birth is 29/12/1921. The respondent herein, i. e. , the Director, Post-Graduate Centre, Anantapur was made the sole defendant in the suit. The defendant was set ex parte, and the suit was decreed on 27/11/1978. On 10/05/1979 it appears, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent, drawing his attention to the decree of the civil Court, and contending that, according to it, he attains the age of superannuation only on 29/12/1981. He enclosed a certified copy of the decree to his application. The petitioner says that he received no reply to his application, and that, when he personally met the Director, he was told that he was to retire on 31/05/1979. He then approached this Court by way of this writ petition, on 28/05/1979, and obtained an interim direction from this court to continue him in service pending disposal of the writ petition.

( 3 ) ON 11/06/1979 the respondent herein applied to the learned District Munsif, Anantapur, for setting aside the ex parte decree. His application, I. A. No. 599 of 1979, we are told, is still pending. The petitioner contends that the respondent, a party to the decree is bound by it and cannot, therefore, retire him from service on any date earlier than 29/11/1981.

( 4 ) THE respondent has filed a counter stating that at the time of his entering into service, the petitioner himself gave his date of birth as 1st June, 1919, that all these years he never raised any objection recording its correctness and that the controversy raised by him just at or about the time of retirement is only an afterthought, and is not true. It is submitted that, on account of certain internal disturbances in the Centre, the suit papers received by the then Director could not be traced and out and, therefore, the suit could not be contested and that, as soon as he took charge, he has taken immediate steps for contesting the suit. It is also submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioner, he did not ask for a relief or a direction to correct the service record and that, until and unless that is done, a bare declaration is of no consequence. Only because of the interim direction given by this Court, it is stated, has the petitioner been continued in service beyond 31/05/1979.

( 5 ) MR. P. Kodandaramayya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent being a party to the declaratory decree is bound by it and that, merely because an application for setting aside the ex parte decree is pending. The respondent cannot refuse to obey or honour the decree. He submitted that this is not a suit attracting S. 34 of the Specific Relief Act and therefore, a suit for a bare declaration is valid and maintainable and that, it was not obligatory upon the petitioner to ask for any consequential direction for correction of the service-record.

( 6 ) ON the other hand Sri A. Venkataramana, the learned couns