( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has raised a point as to the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the controversy raised in this petition, few relevant facts may now be stated. The petitioner was sought to be retired on the basis of his date of birth recorded with the respondent authorities as 1st February, 1939. According to the petitioner, his date of birth shown in service record was not correct and there was a mistake in recording it. Since he was an employee of the Central Government, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), he approached Central Administrative Tribunal ("c. A. T. " for short ). He filed an Application being Original Application No. 101 of 1994 for getting a declaration that his correct date of birth was September 3, 1942 and for consequential reliefs on that basis. C. A. T. , however, did not uphold the contention of the petitioner and by an order dated June 21, 1995 (Annexure Z to the petition) dismissed the petition. In the operative part of the order, it was stated :-"taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the application is devoid of any merit and hence, it is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. "

( 3 ) AGAINST the said order, the petitioner filed an Application for review being review Application No. 42 of 1996. That Application was filed exactly after one year, i. e. on June 21, 1996. To recall, the order was passed by C. A. T. on June 21, 1995. When the Review Application came up for hearing before C. A. T. , it was dismissed on the ground of limitation as also on merits. The Tribunal observed in its order dated October 30, 1996 :-"this Review Application has been filed by the applicant more than one year after the judgment in O. A. 101 of 1994 was delivered, it deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. On going through the Review Application, we find that even on merits, there is no case for review of our judgment dated 21-6-1995 in O. A. 101 of 1994 as there is no apparent error on the face of the record of the judgment. Accordingly, Review Application is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the R. A. , M. A. 611 of 1996 does not survive. "

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by an order passed by C. A. T. , the petitioner approached the honble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No. 5210-5211 of 1997 on 31st January, 1997. The said matters came up for hearing before the Apex court on March 20, 1997 and following order was passed : "the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. "

( 5 ) AFTER S. L. P. s were dismissed and leave was refused by the Honble Supreme court, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. In paragraph 8 of the petition, the petitioner prays :- (a) This Honble High Court may be pleased to issue a directive to the respondent Union of India to change the date of birth of the applicant from 1-2-1939 to 3-9-1942 and grant all consequential benefits on the basis of such changed date of birth. (b) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the petitioner may not be retired on the basis of the birth date recorded as 31-12-1939 and to be continued by granting the status quo. (c) Award the coat of this Application to the petitioner. (d) Grant any other and further reliefs as would be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.

( 6 ) INITIALLY notice was issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court on June 20, 1997 by making it returnable on July 4, 1997. Thereafter, Rule was issued on september 4, 1997. Now the matter is called out for final hearing.

( 7 ) WE have heard Mr. B. P. Tanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. J. Oza, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. D. A. Bambhania, Additional government Pleader for respondent No. 2.

( 8 ) MR. Tanna submitted that after the judgment