Judgment :- 1. A distinguished Prime Minister of England while addressing the members in British Civil Service remarked: "You and I are both doing our work in the world for its own sake, and with no object or probability or possibility of becoming rich; and yet I always feel that those who are engaged in your work should at least be relieved from all financial anxiety, from such financial anxiety as may destroy that peace of mind which is essential, from such household difficulties as destroy the possibility of a proper and a reasonable leisure and above all from such a need to augment their income as may draw men from their own proper and peculiar avocation and rank." (See "Last Speeches as Prime Minister" by the Rt. Hon'ble Stanley Baldurin M. P, Page 50-51). It is perhaps in the evening of one's life that the financial anxiety is most actuate, when household difficulties assume oppressive proportions, and when proper and reasonable leisure is most coveted for. A premature retirement caused by an accidental slip in recording the date of birth in the school records is therefore agonising to any civil servant who has served the State for long years. Frustrated in their attempts to get relief from the Government, the civil servants used to approach courts of law too. An overview of earlier cases reveals a helplessness then felt by the courts to grant reliefs, even when the decisions of the Government were found to be incorrect or unjust. (See Varadaraja v. State of Travancore-Cochin, AIR. 1953 TRA-Co. 140; Zainuddin v. Travancore-Cochin State, 1954 KLT. 967; M. Kesava Panicker v. State, 1956 KLT. 906; Mohmmed v. State of Kerala, 1957 KLT. 608). A judicial officer (who now is an experienced senior lawyer of this court too was the victim of that attitude. The stern warning given by this court to the Government that "it is high time its machiavellian outlook is given the go-by and civil servants are allowed a fair deal in the matter of proving their correct age", gave him poor solace. (See Joseph Augustine v. State of Kerala, 1959 KLT. 553). It is possible by a hind sight now to view these decisions as wrongly decided. It was Dr. Binapani Dei's case f AIR. 1967 SC. 1269), I think, that opened new horizons. (See Joseph Augustine v. State of Kerala, 1959 KLT. 553). It is possible by a hind sight now to view these decisions as wrongly decided. It was Dr. Binapani Dei's case f AIR. 1967 SC. 1269), I think, that opened new horizons. The concept of 'adverse civil consequences' having a bearing on the adjudicatory process emerged from that decision. Its impact on that illuminating trail of the Rule of Law natural justice is now well known to any student of constitutional history. In the wake of the decision, this court changed its earlier stance on the scope of writ petitions concerning the correction of date of birth. Relief was granted to a petitioner in T. P. Sukumaran v. District Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode,1971 KLT. 188, where the contentions urged on behalf of the Government (by me as a Government Pleader, if I may be excused for a personal reminiscence) were repelled by Eradi. J. who, if T may say so with utmost respect, laid down the correct legal position. The learned judge observed: "As pointed out by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v.Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR. 1967 SC. 1269, the determination of the question relating to the date of birth of an officer is not to be done arbitrarily but only in a manner consonant with the basic concept of justice; that is because as a result of such determination civil consequences are likely to be visited on the public servant concerned." The fact that the Government servant had signed the service register confirming the correctness of the entries therein did not preclude a request by him for correcting the mistake. It was pointed out: "In almost every case where such a request is made there would necessarily be the fact that at the time of opening the service book the Government servant concerned would have signed the said register confirming the correctness of the entry therein. It cannot be disputed that in numerous cases such applications have been entertained and disposed of on the merits after due investigation of the truth or otherwise of the claim put forward by the concerned Government servants." The trend set by Varadaraja v. State of Travancore-Cochin was definitely reversed. 2. It cannot be disputed that in numerous cases such applications have been entertained and disposed of on the merits after due investigation of the truth or otherwise of the claim put forward by the concerned Government servants." The trend set by Varadaraja v. State of Travancore-Cochin was definitely reversed. 2. The influx of writ petitions seeking similar reliefs, is indicative of the faith of the citizen, and of the civil servants, of this country, in obtaining redressal of their grievances, when facts justify the same. This writ petition, by a person who served the State for over a quarter of a century, and who was forced to retire on 31-12-1981 while functioning as an Under Secretary, is one such. And she is approaching the court for the second time. Earlier, she moved OP. 6660 of 1981, which was disposed of by Bhat, J. on 15-3-1982. The findings and directions contained in the judgment in that case (produced in this case as Ext. P5) make it unnecessary for me to refer exhaustively to all the facts, in view of the narrowing down of the area of controversy by that judgment. 3. The bare facts, however, maybe recapitulated. According to the petitioner, she was born on 2-7-1105 ME. which corresponds to 13-2-1930AD. She lost her father in early infancy. Snehappu, was to her the mother, the father and the guardian. It is stated that the mother was illiterate. Adventitious aid was sought to take the girl to the school. In the school records, her date of birth was, (according to the petitioner wrongly) shown as 20-4-1102-a disadvantageous difference of three years. It is not as though she realised the mistake only on the eve of her retirement. She detected it way back in 1968. She averred and that averment was not denied by the Government that a representation for correction of her date of birth had been filed before the Government in December, 1968. An application made by her to get a certified extract from the Registrar of Births.and Deaths was initially unsuccessful, the Municipal Authorities of Neyyattinkara pleading helplessness to trace the relative records. Her perseverance was, however, rewarded, when at last she obtained the certifiicate of the Municipality on 6-8-1981, produced in the Original Petition as Ext. P1. A renewed representation was made on 17-8-1981 before the Government. The merits of the representation were, however, not gone into. Her perseverance was, however, rewarded, when at last she obtained the certifiicate of the Municipality on 6-8-1981, produced in the Original Petition as Ext. P1. A renewed representation was made on 17-8-1981 before the Government. The merits of the representation were, however, not gone into. According to the Government, it was belated: within the prohibited two year period prior to retirement. The representation was rejected by proceedings dated 4-10-1981 (Ext. P4). This forced the petitioner to approach this Court. The writ petition referred to earlier, OP. 6660 of 1981, was filed under the above circumstances. 4. My learned brother. Justice U. L. Bhat, quashed the impugned order which was produced in that case as Ext. P6, holding that "there is certainly an error of law apparent on the face of the records in Ext. P6 order dismissing the application as belated." The learned judge observed that "the respondents had no case that the application filed in 1968 had been disposed of by any order or that any such order had been communicated to the petitioner." The representation of 1981 was therefore held to be a continuation of the application submitted in the year 1968. 5. It is seen that the respondent in that writ petition contended that the application of 7-12-1968 was not accompanied by any evidence in substantiation of her claims. It was held that that contention would not affect her case, in view of the averments regarding the application made by her for the extract of birth register, the inability of the authority to issue it (as the records had been misplaced) and the fact that ultimately the extract was issued only in 1981. Yet another contention urged on behalf of the Government was that there was nothing to connect the person referred to in the birth register with the petitioner. The learned judge observed: "That of course is true. But then learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me that the petitioner is prepared to produce before the Government connecting evidence." Ultimately a direction was issued to the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. The quashing of the order, the learned judge observed, would not entitle the petitioner to seek admission to duty immediately. (She had in the mean time retired with effect from 31-12-1981, as the Government proceeded on the basis of her service records as they existed then). The quashing of the order, the learned judge observed, would not entitle the petitioner to seek admission to duty immediately. (She had in the mean time retired with effect from 31-12-1981, as the Government proceeded on the basis of her service records as they existed then). Bhat J. further observed: "In case the application ultimately results in an order in favour of the petitioner, she will be reinstated with retrospective effect." 6. The Petitioner produced before the Government the originals of the documents which she had earlier produced in OP. 6660/1981. They included the church records, a certificate from the Tahsildar dated 1-12-1981 and one from the Municipal Chairman of the Neyyattinkara Municipality. Thereafter the Government issued a letter dated 25-8-1982 (Ext. P8) to the petitioner. It reads: "In the OP. No. 6660/811 suspect whether it is possible to repost you on the basis of Ext. P13 alone. Hence I request you that a fresh Certificate to that effect may please be produced within a week from the concerned Tahsildar." (emphasis supplied) (The communication is not happily worded The word 'Suspect' does not appear to be appropriate. The assumption that the petitioner's claim was based on "Ext. P13 alone" is not justified.) Ext. P13 referred to in Ext. P8 is the certificate issued by the Municipal Chairman dated 30-11-1981. That obviously was not the only document relied on by the petitioner. Perhaps a rough draft put up by an inexperienced assistant has been approved and issued without adequate scrutiny by the superior officials. 7. Thereafter, on 30-8-1982, the petitioner filed another certificate from the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara, dated 30-8-1982 (Ext. P9), certifying that the petitioner was "the youngest daughter of late Smt. Snehappu, Chekkalackal Puthen Veedu. Irumpil, Neyyattinkara Village and Smt. S. Jane, Under Secretary, General Administrative Department, Secretariat, Trivandrum, in the above address are one and the same person." (emphasis supplied). The later sentence is also of some significance. It reads: "This certificate is issued for producing before the Secretariat." (emphasis supplied). 8. Impatient at the further inaction on the part of the Government, the petitioner by Ext. P10 reminded the Government about her grievances. She said, inter alia: "About 9 months are over. I remain at home without getting any remuneration." 9. The representation was ultimately disposed of on 11-10-1982 by Ext. P14 order. 8. Impatient at the further inaction on the part of the Government, the petitioner by Ext. P10 reminded the Government about her grievances. She said, inter alia: "About 9 months are over. I remain at home without getting any remuneration." 9. The representation was ultimately disposed of on 11-10-1982 by Ext. P14 order. Reference is made therein to her representation, the earlier writ petition, the direction of this court in the judgment therein, and the eight documents produced by the petitioner in substantiation of her contention. In Para.3 the Government Order, G. O. (P) No. 260/75/PD dated 2-11-1975 giving guidelines for actions on such matters, was adverted to. The representation was, however, rejected on the ground that the documents 'are not found to serve as conclusive proof. (emphasis supplied). The reasons discernible from the order are: (i) There is no certificate of identification to prove that the person whose date of birth is certified and the applicant are one and the same, (ii) The address given in the Birth Certificate differs from the entries in other documents. The certificate of the Tahsildar, dated 31-8-1982 does not by itself prove that Smt. S. Jane, whose birth is certified as 2-7-1105 is the last born female child of Snehappu. (iii) It is evident that the entries made in the family register maintained by the Pastor were made when the petitioner was in Government service and the date of birth was not entered on the basis of the entry in the birth register, since the extract of the register was made available to her on 6-8-1981 only and (iv) "There is also not a baptism certificate." 10. The order is challenged on the ground that it is absolutely perverse. The petitioner's case was ably presented before the Court by Advocate Kumari Lalitha, who argued the case with commendable zeal and welcome legal research. 11. Along with the Original Petition, the baptism certificate has been also produced and marked as Ext. P17 The counter affidavit filed in this case, does not throw further light on the action taken by the Government: The correctness of Ext. P17 is not disputed in the aforesaid counter-affidavit. 12. "Wednesbury principle" is now much entrenched in administrative law. (See the famous speech of Lord Greene, M. R. in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1941) 2 All E. R.680 at p. 683). Elsewhere and here. P17 is not disputed in the aforesaid counter-affidavit. 12. "Wednesbury principle" is now much entrenched in administrative law. (See the famous speech of Lord Greene, M. R. in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1941) 2 All E. R.680 at p. 683). Elsewhere and here. One of the recent decisions, where the role of court in such context has been dealt with, is R. v. Boundary Commission for England, (1983) 1 All E.R. 1099. The following passage sums up the position correctly: "But if ministers or local authorities exceed their powers, if they choose to do something or to refrain from doing something in circumstances in which this is not one of the options given to them by Parliament, the courts can and will intervene in defence of the ordinary citizen. It is of the essence of parliamentary democracy that those to whom powers are given by Parliament shall be free to exercise those powers, subject to constitutional protest and criticism and parliamentary or other democratic control. But any attempt by ministers or local authorities to usurp powers which they have not got or to exercise their powers in a way which is unauthorised by Parliament is quite a different matter. As Sir Winston Churchil was wont to say, 'That is something up with which we will not put.' If asked to do so, it is then the role of the courts to intervene and, in the interest of everyone concerned, to prevent this happening." If the Government has therefore misdirected itself in law, or had failed to consider matters which they were bound to consider or had taken into consideration matters which they should not have considered, the action of the Government will be amenable to curial correction. 13. Let me now restructure the picture on the basis of available facts and materials, and find out whether the order of the Government is a perverse one, as contended. 14. That a female child was born to Snehappu in a hospital within the Neyyattinkara Municipality, on 2-7-1105, could not admit of any doubt and has not been doubted even by the Government- in view of Ext. P1. The date of registration of the birth was 15-10-1105. The child grew to an age where it could join the school. 14. That a female child was born to Snehappu in a hospital within the Neyyattinkara Municipality, on 2-7-1105, could not admit of any doubt and has not been doubted even by the Government- in view of Ext. P1. The date of registration of the birth was 15-10-1105. The child grew to an age where it could join the school. The pupil, S. Jain whose guardian and mother is Snehappu of Chekkalakkal Puthen Veedu, Irumbil Desom, Neyyattinkkara, joined the School, with the date of birth 20-4-1102. (Ext. P15). In course of time, she came of age, became a University graduate on 2-3-1953, and entered Government Service (Ext. P16 service register). The address given in the school record and the service register is Chekkalakkal Puthen Veedu Irumbil Desom, Neyyattinkara. Snehappu Jain of Chekkalakkal Puthen Veedu, got married to Manuvel Sarasam on 5-5-1960, (Vide marriage register maintained by the Church of South India Ext. P3). The date of birth in this document of Snehappu Jain of Chekkalakkal Puthen Veedu is given as 2-7-1105. It appears that consequent on the marriage, she migrated to another parish, the parish of her husband's family. A certificate issued by the church is Ext. P2. There too, the date of birth of Snehappu Jain is given, as 2-7-1105. The Municipal Chairman and the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara both certified that Snehappu Jain was the youngest daughter of Snehappu. On the question about the difference in address of the petitioner also there was clarification. The identity of the person described as S. Jain, Chekkalakkal Puthen Veedu, Neyyattinkara with the, petitioner, who was the Under Secretary, General Administrative Department, Secretariat, had been certified under Ext. P9. 15. There is perhaps some justification for entertaining some doubt when the date of birth is given as 1102 in the school record. It is quite possible that a female child was born to Snehappu in 1102 and Jain the petitioner could be that child. If, Ext. P1 had stood by itself, it would have probably left matters in an ambiguous state. However, it must be noted that if another girl is born to Snehappu, the petitioner would not be the youngest female child of Snehappu. If, Ext. P1 had stood by itself, it would have probably left matters in an ambiguous state. However, it must be noted that if another girl is born to Snehappu, the petitioner would not be the youngest female child of Snehappu. When the records and certificates clinchingly assert that the petitioner was the youngest daughter, and when indubitably a female child had been born on 2-7-1105 to Snehappu, the petitioner could either be the child born on 2-7-1105, or a child born on a subsequent date. She could not be the child born on any date anterior to 2-7-1105; for, if it were so, she would not be the youngest daughter of Snehappu. On the existing materials, therefore, do other conclusion than that the petitioner was born on 2-7-1105 can be entertained by any authority acting reasonably. A perusal of the documents and the certificates will conclusively establish that the petitioner born to Snehappu had the address "Chekkalakkal Puthen Veedu, Irumbil Desom, Neyyattinkara" and that it was the selfsame person who had entered the school where Ext. P15 was prepared and who later entered Government Service under Ext. P16. The link between the petitioner and her mother Snehappu is too strong to be overlooked. Maternity, it is well known, is a certainty. There is hardly any justification to say that necessary identity between the petitioner and the person born on 2-7-1105 had not been established, in view of the abundance of documentary evidence before the Government. 16. It is not as though the church records should be discarded in a light-hearted fashion. Circumstances justifying their veracity could be doubted. However, in the absence of any such indication, they could not be summarily rejected. It is one thing to say that due to misplacement of the records in the Municipal office, the extract of the registry of birth could be obtained by the petitioner only on 6-8-1981 and another thing to say that the church records were not compiled properly. If there is a suggestion that the church records were prepared later than 3-8-1981, it is mischievously baseless, and it is a complete misreading of the church records and an unreasonable inference from the extract of the birth register. 17. It must also be borne in mind that the representation has been made by a person occupying the status of an Under Secretary of the Government. 17. It must also be borne in mind that the representation has been made by a person occupying the status of an Under Secretary of the Government. Not that occupation of a fairly high position in the official hierarchy is a matter for differentiation in the approach in such cases. However, a sense -of responsibility and a regard for truth could normally be expected of such a Government official. When there are other and clinching items of evidence in support of her representation, the Government should not, merely because of an earlier incorrect stand taken by it, allow its vision to be dimmed and its observation to be obfuscated. Unfortunately that is precisely what has happened in the present case. It is unfortunate that the petitioner was left with a feeling justified in the circumstances that her representation did not evoke a reasonable response and that the Government had a pretended stupor. I have no hesitation in holding that the order Ext. P14 is totally unreasonable-and perverse and that cannot be sustained. I would therefore quash Ext. P14, as vitiated in law. 18. It is not necessary to consider at length, whether in these circumstances, the petitioner should not be given all the emoluments she is entitled to on the basis that she is continuing in service. That she can claim such benefits is established by the principles laid down in the decisions of this court and the observations of the Supreme Court in analogous situations, (See Eapen v. Union of India, 1979 KLT. 861). In the present case, however, there is a binding direction in Ext. P5 judgment whereunder the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with retrospective effect. This direction will have to be implemented with all its concomitant consequences, including arrears of salary and other benefits. 19. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to be reinstated forthwith, with retrospective effect, and with all emoluments and benefits she is entitled to. It would, however, be open to the Government to make necessary adjustments as regards the period she was out of service, such as by setting off her leave entitlements, if any, while computing the benefits payable to her consequent on the direction contained in this judgment. I trust that the petitioner also would take a reasonable attitude in that matter. 20. I trust that the petitioner also would take a reasonable attitude in that matter. 20. Oscar Wilde, in his play'An Ideal Husband', made a biting sarcasm about those with open mouth and closed mind, as is revealed from the following conversation: "Lady Basildon: I don't know how the unfortunate men in the house stand these long debates. Lord Goring: By never listening. Lady Basildon: Really? Lord Goring: (in bis most serious manner) Of course, You see, it is a very dangerous thing to listen. If one listens, one may be convinced; and a man who allows himself to be convinced by an argument is a thoroughly unreasonable person". There have been and continue to be criticisms on the pattern of functioning of those whom a jurist termed as "super-bureaucrats". However, silver linings are also seen even as regards the civil service. In relation to persons discharging very onerous and responsible duties in England, in matters involving huge finances, but who had acted fairly in the discharge of their duties, H. H. Monroe while delivering the 33rd series of Hamlyn Lectures, entitled "Intolerable inquisition Reflections on The Law of Tax" observed: "All we can say about it is that it is a standing tribute to the fairmindedness of the British Civil Service." 21. It is to be hoped that the guidelines given by judicial decisions for over three decades on the modalities of constitutional functioning of the different authorities would enable the civil service in India too, earn a similar standing tribute. Allowed.