1. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the State of Bihar against the order dated 15-9-1999 in C.W.J.C. No. 9782 of 1998, whereby the writ petition was allowed with a direction to treat the date of birth of the respondent (writ petitioner) as 31st December, 1940.

2. In this case, there is a delay in filing the appeal, therefore, a petition under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condonation of the delay. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the Petition and contended that the appellants are required to show sufficient and good cause for condonation of each days delay, failing which the appeal is fit to be dismissed as time, barred. In support of the contention, learned Counsel also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, through its Chairman and Ors. V/s. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Advocate and Anr. 1999(1) P.L. J.R. 60 and yet another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Chandra Mani and Ors. -- .

3. True, it is in order to get the delay condoned, it should be necessary for the appellant to show sufficient cause. But in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. V/s. Most. Katiji and Ors. -- a Court should always adopt liberal approach. "Sufficient Cause" implied by the Legislature under the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable a Court to apply the law in a meaningful manner for the ends of justice, therefore, in a case it appears essential for the ends of justice to go to the merit of the case, it would be proper for a court to adopt liberal approach. We, therefore, keeping in mind this aspect of the matter and also the important question involved in this case are inclined to condon the delay.

4. Now turning to the merit of the case as would appear that the respondent was initially appointed as matriculate constable on 11th January, 1959 and later promoted up to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police. The year of birth of respondent in the service book was recorded as 1940, hence on completing the service tenure he superannuated with effect from 1st July, 1998. On getting the letter of superannuation the respondent, however, made a representation for the correction of date of birth. In the representation, it was alleged that the respondent had signed the service book in good faith and in fact he had no knowledge prior to communication of the letter of retirement, regarding the entry about the year of birth in the service book. The representation of respondent was rejected on the ground that he had full knowledge about the year of birth as recorded in the service and no attempt or objection was ever made during whole of the service tenure for correction.

5. On behalf of the State, it was pointed out that the respondent being a literate person had signed the service book, therefore, had full knowledge about the year of birth as recorded therein. That apart even at the time of P.T.C. examination or promotions to the rank of A.S.I. and S.I. no such grievance was made.

6. In the counter-affidavit, it was further pointed out that in view of the Provisions of Rule 97 (1) of the Bihar Financial Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), if a Government servant is unable to state his exact date of birth, but can state the year or year and month of birth, the 1st July or the 16th of the month, respectively may be treated as the date of birth. Since in the service book of the respondent the year of birth was recorded as 1940 his retirement will take effect from 1st July. 1998.

7. The contention of the State was, however, rejected holding that having regard to the well settled views the benefit of such uncertainty must go in favour of the weaker side or the person who is going to be effected. Thus, in a case where only the year of birth is mentioned, the authorities will have no option but to treat the last date of the year, i.e. 31st