ORDER : A.M. Ahmadi, CJI.- 1. Special leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We think that this appeal can be disposed of on a narrow point. The birth date of the appellant as recorded in the service record was 12-9-1936. As this birth date, according to the appellant, was wrongly recorded, he made a representation to the State Government seeking correction of his birth date way back in 1972. The said representation was considered by the State Government and the State Government ultimately came to the conclusion that his correct date of birth should be 6-7-1939. Pursuant to that decision taken by the State Government, GOMs No. 1505 dated 18-10-1982 directed the necessary correction which was made on 15-11-1982. Similar corrections were also made by certain other authorities to which the appellant represented. The service-book of the appellant was also similarly corrected and his date of superannuation was shown to be July 1997. After the issuance of the aforementioned orders in 1982, a proposal was submitted by the State Government to the Central Government for his appointment to all-India service by promotion for inclusion in the Selection List of IAS. In order to qualify for entry into the Select List, two conditions had to be satisfied. The first being that he should be under 52 years of age on the qualifying date and he should have completed 8 years' service in the Deputy Collector's grade. Unfortunately, for the appellant, the State Government while forwarding the proposal committed an error in mentioning his date of birth as the old date of birth instead of the revised date of birth. This adversely affected his chances for inclusion in the IAS Select List. It further appears that the State Government then issued notice dated 20-7-1993 by which it sought to retire the appellant on the basis of the original birth date. The appellant, therefore, approached the Tribunal. But the Tribunal held that in terms of Rule 16-A of the All-India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958, he was not entitled to relief. Hence, this appeal. 3. The fact remains that the appellant's birth date was incorrect. After an enquiry, consequential Government orders were issued directing the correction of the birth date in the relevant records including his service-book. The birth dates were so corrected. Hence, this appeal. 3. The fact remains that the appellant's birth date was incorrect. After an enquiry, consequential Government orders were issued directing the correction of the birth date in the relevant records including his service-book. The birth dates were so corrected. Therefore, merely because the State Government committed an error while forwarding the proposal to the Central Government in regard to the birth date, it is not correct to say that in view of Rule 16-A, he is not entitled to the benefit of the correct birth date. Rule 16-A(3) provides that the date of birth recorded in the service-book shall be accepted by the Central Government as the birth date of the civil servant concerned for determining the age of superannuation. Once the date of birth was corrected in the service record, including the service-book, and the State Government had informed the Central Government that it had committed an error in mentioning the same while forwarding the proposal, the Central Government should have taken note thereof and if it had any doubt about it, should have enquired into the matter as to its correctness but could not have brushed aside the same. 4. In the result, we allow this appeal and direct that the correct birth date of the appellant should be taken as 6-7-1939 as per the orders passed by the State of Andhra Pradesh after due enquiry and sanctified in GOMs No. 1505 dated 18-10-1982. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Consequential action should be taken by the Government concerned within three months. Appeal allowed