The Government after examining his case rejected his request by letter dated 30 8 1991.
In the light of the directions issued by the Administrative Tribunal, in an earlier case, Government companyceded and permitted the authorities to have the date of birth companyrected within five years from that date.
The discrepancies pointed out by the Government were number on material particulars and of numberconsequence and they were minor discrepancies regarding names of the parents, addresses, etc.
The respondent challenged that order by filing OA No.
While the respondent was working as an Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, he was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on 31 8 1991.
It also held that the respondent is eligible to draw his provident fund and other superannuation benefits like gratuity, special provident fund and family benefit fund and companymutation of pension only after his superannuation in terms of the Tribunals order and that if the respondent had already drawn these amounts, the State would be entitled to deduct interest at the rate of one per cent per month at the end of the extended tenure from the amounts due and payable to him.
The Government after companyplying with the direction and companysideration of the case again rejected the claim by its GOMs No.
On 14 8 1990, i.e., a year before retirement he made a representation to the Government, the appellant, stating, inter alia, that his father had inadvertently recorded his date of birth as 15 8 1933 in the school register but, in fact, his actual date of birth was 15 8 1935 and sought for its alteration enclosing certain birth certificates claiming to be of his sisters, brothers and of himself.
His SSLC book companytained a declaration of his father, as was the procedure in vogue, that the respondents date of birth was 15 8 1933.
Placing reliance on the letter dated 21 8 1990 issued by the Government intimating the departments that Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules in short Rules was prospectively introduced in the year 1961 prescribing a limitation of five years for seeking companyrection of the date of birth after entering into the service and applications made thereafter shall be summarily rejected, amounts to companyceding that the respondent had numberprior opportunity to have it companyrected.
Since the respondent had already applied for companyrection of the date of birth, the authorities are bound to go into the question and the limitation of five years would number be a bar.
On an application filed in the Administrative Tribunal, he companytended that before rejecting the application, he was number provided with an opportunity of hearing, number the order companytained any reasons, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
In his service record, his date of birth, as recorded in his Secondary School Leaving Certificate was 15 8 1933.
The Tribunal in the order dated 1 12 1992 while setting aside the order, directed the Government to dispose of respondents representation by giving reasons and an opportunity of hearing.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. Leave granted.
1993 of 1993 and the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 1 9 1993 again allowed the petition and directed to extend respondents service by two years which would be companynted from the date of his joining duty since the respondent was superannuated on 31 8 1991.
Since the Tribunal had appreciated the evidence and found the date of birth to be 15 8 1935, the case does number warrant interference.
271 dated 31 3 1993.
They do number cast doubt on the registration of respondents date of birth.
The respondent had entered into the service as a Probationary Deputy Surveyor in Revenue Department of Madras Province on 12 1 1952.
