1. - These two appeals have been filed by the State of Rajasthan against judgment and decree dated 21.01.2009 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the appeals filed by defendant appellant State of Rajasthan against plaintiff-respondent Gulab Chand Jain assailing judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 03.09.2008 was dismissed and the said judgment and decree was upheld. Learned Additional Civil Judge by his aforesaid judgment decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent holding that the case of the petitioner for change of his date of birth from 01.09.1946 to 01.10.1949 is worth consideration and accordingly the plaintiff was required to make a representation to the defendant within a period of fortnight which the defendants were directed to decide within two months. It was further directed that in the event of representation of the plaintiff being allowed, he would be entitled to receive all the consequential benefits at par with his immediate junior. Both the plaintiff as well as defendants dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, filed appeals before Additional District Judge. While appeal of defendant State of Rajasthan was dismissed and appeal filed by plaintiff Gulab Chand Jain was allowed with the declaration that correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 01.10.1949 instead of 01.09.1946 and defendant - Government was directed to make necessary correction in his service record accordingly and the order dated 31.08.2006 retiring him from service was set aside with further direction to reinstate him in service.

2. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction that his date of birth should be in the record has wrongly been indicated as 01.09.1946 whereas his correct date of birth is 01.10.1949. Plaintiff for the first time came to know his exact date of birth on 18.11.1997. It was the time when his father passed away, he while looking into his old papers and other belongings, plaintiff found three affidavits attested by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bharatpur, on 20.07.1972 along-with certificate issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kumher dated 18.07.1972. He from those documents came to learn that his correct date of birth was 01.10.1949. In backdrop of these facts, prayer was made for declaration and injunction against the defendants.

3. Plaintiff, in support of his case, produced as many as five witnesses, namely, PW-1 Gulab Chand, PW-2 Roopchand, PW-3 Padamchand, PW-4 Lalchand and PW-5 Shiv Singh, and got seventeen documents exhibited. The defendants, in rebuttal, however, produced Kishan Lal Agarwal in witness-box as DW-1 and got one document exhibited as Exhibit A-1, relating to service book.

4. Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for defendants-appellants argued that findings recorded by the courts below are wholly perverse and erroneous. All the documents including service book, state insurance policy, general provident fund papers indicate 01.09.1946 as the date of birth of the plaintiff. Filing of the suit was not bona-fide because the suit was filed by the plaintiff at the fag end of his career. A concocted and fabricated story was put forth on the basis of alleged date of birth of different five brothers and argued that if date of birth of his elder/younger brothers was taken into consideration, it would not be possible that his date of birth would be 01.09.1946. No reliable document to support the claim of the plaintiff that he was born on 01.10.1949 has been produced. The oral statement of the witnesses could not be relied on. It was argued that the plaintiff had for the first time started making efforts to get his date of birth changed in 2000, though he claims that this process was initiated by his father in 1972. Learned counsel argued that Rule 8A of the Rajasthan Service Rules has been completely overlooked by the learned courts below, which inter-alia provides that if a person already