JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent SAIL.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2016 passed in O.A. No. 051/00001/2016 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi (Annexure-9), the applicant/petitioner herein has preferred this writ petition. Applicant had approached the learned CAT in the year 2016 i.e., the year of his superannuation with a prayer to rectify the entry of date of birth in his service records as 19.07.1962 in place of 12.01.1956. The applicant also prayed for consequential benefits upon correction of his date of birth entry in his service record and to allow him to continue in service till 30.07.2022. He has also made a prayer for direction upon the respondents to take proper decision on his representation dated 21.01.2013 for correction of his date of birth.

3. As per the applicant, he had completed matriculation in the year 1980 as per the certificate issued by the CBSE (Annexure-2) wherein the date of birth is shown as 19.07.1962. In his admit card in the intermediate examination also his date of birth is recorded as 19.07.1962 (Annexure-3). His PAN Card also bore the same date of birth. According to the applicant the respondent authorities unilaterally changed his date of birth. He represented in 1993 and again on 21.10.2013 (Anexure-5 series) but without any result. Since the matriculation certificate is conclusive proof of date of birth and he had passed matriculation before entering in service, the date of birth entered in the service record ought to be corrected.

4. Respondents in their written statement contended that the applicant filled date of birth as 12.01.1956 in triplicate copy of personal data in his own handwriting. In the medical examination conducted in 1982 his age is mentioned as 26 years which corresponds to the year of birth i.e., 1956(Annexure-R/1 thereto). Further in the application for revalidation of medical books submitted by the applicant in the year 1989 his date of birth is mentioned as 12.01.1956. Again in the year 2001 in the application for revalidation of medical book submitted by him, same date of birth is mentioned in his own handwriting. In the LTC form submitted in the year 1998 he had mentioned his age as 42 years in his own hand writing, which corresponds to the year of birth as 1956. Further the application filed in LTC by the applicant on 29.05.2007 his age has been mentioned as 51 years which corresponds to the year 1956. Respondents have also contended that at the time of joining the applicant gave the particulars of his previous experience where he stated that he was Fireman in TISCO from 01.03.1974 to 03.04.1977. According to the respondents, if date of birth of the applicant is reckoned from 19.07.1962, he would be 12 years when he joined as Fireman in TISCO, which is impossible. Respondents had relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vrs. Harnam Singh [1993 AIR 1367 SC]. It was contended that any representation of applicant made for change of date of birth beyond the prescribed time limit cannot be entertained for valid reasons.

5. Applicant in his rejoinder had reiterated the grounds taken in the OA and also enclosed two documents namely the seniority list dated 20.07.2011 and the appointment letter. Learned Tribunal considering the materials on record in its entirety came to the following conclusion:

“13. Even if it is accepted that the applicant approached the respondent authorities in 1993, that was at least ten years after his retirement. The respondents have denied having received any such application. The documents submitted by the applicant at Annexure 5 series do not bear any receipt of the office, therefore, these documents are not reliable and we are inclined to hold that no such representation was given to the authorities in 1993 for change of date of birth and such prayer started only on the verge of retirement.

14. The applicant’s learned counsel sub