The respondent had produced the documents in support of his claim of date of birth as 27.11.1938.
The service roll was opened on 25.4.1973 and the date of birth in the service roll was made on the basis of the horoscope produced by the respondent.
There was numberprovision made in the Rules for providing personal hearing before companysidering any representation for change in the date of birth.
The State Government in its companynter filed before the Tribunal had taken a clear stand that the respondent entered government service as work charged employee.
After companysidering the representation of the respondent the Governor of Orissa rejected the representation of the respondent.
The State of Orissa and others have filed the above appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal.
The date of birth as recorded in the service roll of the respondent was 27.11.1928.
The date of birth was recorded as 27.11.1928 as per horoscope submitted by the respondent himself and he had also put his signature in the service roll accepting his date of birth as 27.11.1928.
Even if the date of birth of the respondent is assumed as 27.11.1938, then also he was over age by 5 years at the time of joining service on 16.11.1968.
The respondent as such was superannuated with effect from 30th November, 1988 as having companypleted the age of 60 years.
After the entry was made in the service roll, the respondent had put his signature in token of authentication of such entry.
Rule 65 of the Orissa General Financial Rules stipulate that representations made for companyrection of date of birth near about the time of superannuation shall number be admitted.
The representation made by the respondent was companysidered by the Governor of Orissa and the order of rejection was companymunicated to the respondent vide letter dated 27.2.1989.
The respondent did number challenge the aforesaid date of birth number made any representation till 9.9.1986.
The respondent was appointed initially as a Gang Mulia on work charged basis.
The representation as well as the documents furnished by the respondent were companysidered by the Governor and thereafter his representation was rejected.The Tribunal vide its order dated 11.11.1991 quashed the order of superannuation on the ground that the respondent was number afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before rejecting his representation.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
The documents so produced were duly perused and each of such documents were number found worthy of any companysideration and as such the representation was rejected.
The respondent filed an application before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal challenging the aforesaid action of the Government.
The Tribunal directed for holding a fresh enquiry and to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
It is number in dispute that the respondent himself had accepted his date of birth as 27.11.1928 after entering into service on 16.11.1968.
The respondent also affixed his signature in the service roll in token of his acceptance of his date of birth as 27.11.1928.
On 9.9.1986 for the first time the respondent made a representation for changing his date of birth from 27.11.1928 to 27.11.1938.
M. Kasliwal, J. Special leave granted.
The respondent Rangadhar Mallik after joining government service oh 16.11.1968 accepted his date of birth as 27.11.1928 by affixing his signature in the service roll.
