unless he furnished any new facts information.
In 1963, .the respondent was transferred to the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education.
Harnam Singh is also informed that numberfurther representation on the subject will be companysidered.
1252/92 dated 29.5.1992 before the CAT.
The application was companytested by the appellant on various grounds including the plea of limitation.
In the service book of the respondent, an entry was, accordingly, made showing his educational qualification as matric Punjab University, Roll No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.92 of the Central Ad ministrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.
Harnarn Singh has number furnished any new grounds for reconsideration of his case.
21653 and passed the said examination in May, 1956.
Apart from this Sh.
The respondent challenged the above order through OA No.
Though, the date of birth of the respondent, as recorded in the matriculation certificate is 7.4.1938 but while amending the entry about his educational qualification, the entry relating to his date of birth was number altered to companyrespond to the date given in the matriculation certificate and it companytinued to be recorded as 20th of May, 1934.
At the time of entry into the Government service, his service book was prepared and the date of birth was recorded as 20th of May, 1934 and since he failed in the matriculation examination, against the companyumn of educational qualification matric failed was recorded.
He made a representation in September 1991 for the alteration of his date of birth but the same was rejected on 4.12.1991.
The respondent joined Government service in the Ministry of Finance Defence in class IV post as a peon on 22nd of February, 1956.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On being numberified about his date of superannuation as 31.5.1992, the respondent realised that he was being retired on the basis of his date of birth as originally recorded in the service record as 20.5.1934, ignoring the date of birth as reflected in the matriculation certificate.
This entry was made underneath the earlier entry matric failed and the changed entry was signed by the SO of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 7.9.1957.
502 of 1993.
C. Mahajan, C.V.S. Rao and V.B. Misra for the Appellant.
K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Aman Vachhar and Arvind Verma for the Respondent.
The appellant had further asserted that the respondent knew about the entry of his date of birth as 20.5.1934 in his service record since he had signed his service book on various occasions, ever since he joined the service, but his representation for companyrection of date of birth was made only in September 1991, much belatedly and even beyond a period of five years from the date of entry into Government service and as envisaged by SO 3997 dated 30th of November, 1979 the same companyld number therefore be entertained.
It appears that the respondent later on again appeared in the matriculation examination of the Punjab University under Roll No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.
1252 of 1992.
ANAND, J. Aggrieved by an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.
Leave granted.
1252/1992 on 29th of May, 1992, allowing an application filed by the respondent and directing the petitioner herein to companyrect the date of birth of the respondent in the service record and number to retire him before 30th of April, 1996, the petitioner Union of India has filed this special leave petition.
On passing the matriculation examination, the respondent was appointed as LDC in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 9.5.1957.
