JUDGMENT P.P.Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner Sant Saran Saxena was appointed as Asstt. Wasil Baqui Navis on 15-12-1952 on temporary basis in a purely temporary department known as Collection Department which was established by the State Government after abolition of Zamindari. His services were extended from time to time He was regularised on 12-1-1954 against a regular clear vacancy. On 22-5-1960 the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Asstt. Sub-Treasury Account. This post was also in the Collection Department. 2. In the year 1970, the Collection Department was abolished and merged with the Collectorate. Accordingly petitioner's services also merged with the Collectorate and he was posted as Kurk Amin in Talisil Sadar, district Moradabad in the. year 1970 where he continued to work IN the year 1985, the petitioner was promoted as Court Clerk to the court of S.D.M., Bilari were he continued till 1988. IN the year 1988, he was promoted as Land Acquisition clerk, I Grade. IN September 1989 he was posted as Bill Clerk, I Grade where he continued till he was made to retire by the impugned order dated 9-11-1989. The date of birth of the petitioner is 10-11-1936, which has also been shown in his High School Certificate. The same date of birth is shown in his two transfer certificates and also in the result of High School published in the Gazette of the U. P. Government. The same date of birth was also entered in the Service Book of the petitioner where his date of retirement, is also mentioned as 30-11-1984. The Service Book is verified by the Officers from time to time. By mistake, his dale of birth was shown as 10-11-31 in his Character Roll. It was on the basis of this mistaken entry in his Character Roll, that the petitioner was served with an order dated 9th November,' 1989 directing that he would retire on 30-41-1989. 3. The petitioner challenged this order before the Services Tribunal by filing a petition. The said petition, was, however, dismissed on 7-6-1990 by the Tribunal. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9-11-1989 passed by A.D.M. (Finance) Moradabad and also the order dated 7-6-1990 passed by the Services Tribunal dismissing the petition of the petitioner. 4. The respondents and the petitioner have filed counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. The said petition, was, however, dismissed on 7-6-1990 by the Tribunal. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9-11-1989 passed by A.D.M. (Finance) Moradabad and also the order dated 7-6-1990 passed by the Services Tribunal dismissing the petition of the petitioner. 4. The respondents and the petitioner have filed counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel were heard at length and the record of the case were perused. Since the parties have exchanged affidavits, the petition is finally disposed of at the stage of admission as per rules of the court. 5. The dispute in this petition relates to the date of birth of the petitioner. According to him, his date of birth is 10-11-1936. According to the respondents, however, the date of birth of the petitioner is 10-11-1931. The Services Tribunal has accepted the contention of the respondents holding that the petitioner's date of birth is 10-11-1931. In arriving at this finding the Services Tribunal appears to have been persuaded by the fact that the petitioner joined the services in the year 1952 and so if the contention of the petitioner that his date of birth is 10-11-1936 is accepted he must have joined the service at the age of 16 years of which is not possible because the Government does not accept this. Being influenced by this circumstance, the Services Tribunal has accepted the contention of the respondents without analysing properly the material documentary evidence on record. 6. The approach of the Tribunal is of a person who wants to proceed ahead in reverse gears. The reasoning of the Tribunal precisely is that because the petitioner could not enter Government service at the age of 16 years, he must have interpolated his date of birth in his High School Certificate.; This reasoning is not only incorrect but also perverse. THEre may be variety of reasons for the petitioner to join the service at the age of 16 years. The possibility that it was due to oversight can also not be ruled out. How the petitioner could join the Government service at the age of 16 years was not issue before the Tribunal nor the same is before this Court. THErefore the reasons given by the Tribunal cannot be accepted as correct The petitioner has filed a copy of the High School Certificate 1952 (Annexure 1). How the petitioner could join the Government service at the age of 16 years was not issue before the Tribunal nor the same is before this Court. THErefore the reasons given by the Tribunal cannot be accepted as correct The petitioner has filed a copy of the High School Certificate 1952 (Annexure 1). In this certificate, the Petitioner's date of birth is shown as 10-11-1936. School leaving certificate (Annexure 2) also mentions the date of birth of the petitioner as 10-11-1936. In the Transfer certificate also (Annexure 3), the date of birth is shown as 10th November 1936. In the Gazette Notification dated September 13, 1952 in which the result of the High School Examination held by the Intermediate Board in the year 1952 was published, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 10-11-1936 (Annexure 4). There are two Character Certificates (Annexure 5 and 6) issued by the Principal Seth Jai Dayal Higher Secondary School dated 2-4- 1952 and 6-3-1968 giving the date of birth of the petitioner as 10-11-1936. The most important document on record is the Service Book of the petitioner maintained by the District Magistrate, Moradabad, respondent no. 2. The date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 10-11-1936. Not only that, it is also shown that the petitioner shall be completing 50 years, 55 years and 58 years on 9-11-86, 9-11-91 and 30-11-1994 respectively. These four dates given in the Service Book of the petitioner leave no room for doubt that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10-11-1936. In the third page of the Service Book also the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 10-11- 1936 (Annexure 8). The Service Book is verified by the officers from time to time. In the seniority list prepared in the office of respondent no. 2 also, the date of superannuation of the petitioner is shown as 30-11-1994 which again confirms that the date of birth of the petitioner is 30-11-1936. Thus there is over-whelming documentary evidence supporting the contention of the petitioner that his date of birth is 10th November, 1936. 7. The contention of the respondents in the counter affidavit and also before the Services Tribunal has been that in the High School Certificate, the date of birth has been interpolated as 10th November, 1936 while the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 10th November, 1931. 7. The contention of the respondents in the counter affidavit and also before the Services Tribunal has been that in the High School Certificate, the date of birth has been interpolated as 10th November, 1936 while the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 10th November, 1931. According to the respondents, this interpolated date has been subsequently followed in the School Leaving Certificate, Register of Transfer Certificates, Service Book etc. Even presuming the contention of the respondents as true, the learned Standing Counsel could not give a satisfactory reply to the quarry made by the court as to why and how the date of birth in the U. P. Gazette dated September 13, 1952 wherein the result of the High School Examination conducted by the U. P. Board in the year 1952 was published, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 10-11-1936. THEre can be no explanation of it except that the date of birth of the petitioner in the record of the Board was also 10-11-1936 and it is wrong to say that the petitioner had interpolated the date of birth in the High School Certificate which was in his possession. Thus, the over-whelming documentary evidence discussed above, leaves no room for any doubt whatsoever that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 10-11-1936 and not 10-11-1931. 8. The only document on which reliance has been placed by the respondents is the form of Character Roll (No. 54) of the petitioner in which the date of birth is shown as 10th November, 1931. This Character Roll is prepared from the Service Book. In the Service Book, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 10th November 1936. Not only that, the date on which the petitioner will attain, 50, 55, 58 years are shown as 9-11-86, 9-11-91 and 30-11-94 and thus confirming that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10-11-1936. Even at page 3 of the Service Book (Annexure 8) the date of birth of the petitioner is shown at three places as 10-11-1936. The possibility of a mistake have been committed in the Character Roll while copying the date of birth from the Service Book cannot, therefore, be ruled out. Even at page 3 of the Service Book (Annexure 8) the date of birth of the petitioner is shown at three places as 10-11-1936. The possibility of a mistake have been committed in the Character Roll while copying the date of birth from the Service Book cannot, therefore, be ruled out. In these circumstances, it will be incorrect to hold on the basis of the entry in the Character Roll that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10th November, 1931. It may be pertinent to mention that the respondents had taken a different case before the Services Tribunal. The case of the respondents there was that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 10-11-1936 and it has been interpolated to 10-11-1936- To quote from the judgment of the Services Tribunal : "The Presiding Officer, therefore, pleaded that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 10-11-1926 and not 10-11-1936. He asserted that the petitioner did not lose anything because he retired from service on the basis of his date of birth as 10-11-1931 while his actual date of birth was 10-11- 1926. He had, therefore, already drawn sufficient benefits." 9. The respondents have now given up this stand and have taken a different stand that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10-11-1931. Thus the respondents have taken different stand at different stages which not only weakens their case but completely shatters it also. 10. In view of the overwhelming documentary evidence in favour of the petitioner and other facts and circumstances already discussed above, I have the least hesitation in holding that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10-11-1936 as clearly given in his High School Certificate (Annexure 1). 10. In view of the overwhelming documentary evidence in favour of the petitioner and other facts and circumstances already discussed above, I have the least hesitation in holding that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10-11-1936 as clearly given in his High School Certificate (Annexure 1). U. P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of date of birth) Rules, 1974, as amended in 1980 provides as under : "The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government service or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to his service, including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever." 11. The rules quoted above clearly enunciate that the date of birth or the age recorded in the service book at the time of entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be correct date of birth or age for all purposes in relation to his service including superannuation. The date of birth of the petitioner both in his High School Certificate as well as in the Service Book is 10-11-1936. For the reasons already given above, there is no interpolation either in the High School Certificate or in the Service Book which according to para 9 of the counter affidavit itself, is kept in the safe custody of the office Superintendent of the Collectorate and put up annually before the Collector for entries. I, therefore, held that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10-11-1936 and so he, as per rules, will retire on 30-11-1994. 12. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9-11-1989 passed by the A.D.M. (Finance), Moradabad (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) and order dated 7-6-1990 of the Services Tribunal (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) are set aside. 12. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9-11-1989 passed by the A.D.M. (Finance), Moradabad (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) and order dated 7-6-1990 of the Services Tribunal (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post held by him on 30-11-89. 108 Ramesh Kumar v. A.DM. (A. N. Varma, J.) [ 1991 He shall be entitled to all the benefits such as arrears of salary increments etc. as per Rules and will continue to be in service till the age of superannuation according to his date of birth as 10-11-1936. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own cost of this petition. Petition allowed.