JUDGMENT Ruma Pal, J.: This appeal centers round the question whether the appellant was in service on 1st January, 1986 with the respondent No. 1. The question arises in connection with the benefits available under the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 1995 Scheme). Paragraph 3 of the scheme, in so far as it is relevant, provides: "The scheme shall apply to employees who 1(a) were in the service of the Corporation or a Company, as the case may be, on or after the first day of January, 1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November, 1993". 2. The appellant's case is that he was in the service of the respondent No.1 till 31st January, 1986 and that therefore he is entitled to the benefits under the 1995 Scheme. The respondents' contention is that he has retired on 31st December, 1985 and was not covered by the 1995 Scheme. 3. Undisputedly, in 1948 the appellant joined service in the British India General Insurance Company Limited which was subsequently nationalized in 1972. Thereupon the appellant along with other employees of British India General Insurance Company became the employees of the respondent No. 1. 4. On 28th March, 1985 the Senior Divisional Manager of the respondent No.1 issued an order to the appellant that it was found from the records that the appellant would be "attaining the age of 60 years on 1st February, 1986 in accordance with the General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974 paragraph 12 and the subsequent amendments dated 5.9.1975 and 12.5.1980 thereto" and that he would be "retiring from the services of the company at the close of office hours on 31st January, 1986." 5. The appellant accordingly worked till the afternoon of 31st January, 1986 and retired on that date. 6. After the publication of the Scheme in 1995 the appellant applied in the prescribed form to avail of the benefits under the Scheme. After several reminders, on 1st August, 1996, the Deputy Manager of the respondent No. 1 wrote to the appellant stating: "It appears from our records that your date of birth is 1st January, 1926. You are, therefore, requested to produce us (sic) the original Matriculation Certificate for verification of date of birth as early as possible." 7. After several reminders, on 1st August, 1996, the Deputy Manager of the respondent No. 1 wrote to the appellant stating: "It appears from our records that your date of birth is 1st January, 1926. You are, therefore, requested to produce us (sic) the original Matriculation Certificate for verification of date of birth as early as possible." 7. The reason for the enquiry was that if the appellant was indeed born on 1st January, 1926 then according to the relevant rule he had attained the age of superannuation viz. 60 years on 31st December, 1985. He would therefore have legally stood superannuated on that date and would not be in the service of the respondent No. 1 on or after 1st January, 1986 within the meaning of paragraph 3 of the 1995 Scheme. 8. The appellant was unable to produce the Matriculation Certificate because, as he says, of the long lapse of time since he took that examination. He, however, produced the admit card to the Matriculation Examination which had been issued to him by Calcutta University which states that the appellant's age on 1st March, 1941 (the date of the examination) would be 15 years and 2 months. On this basis the appellant was born on 2nd January, 1986 would have attained the age of superannuation on 1st January, 1986 and not on 31st December, 1985. 9. According to the respondents the material produced by the appellant did not establish that he was born on 2nd January, 1926 as claimed by him. According to them, their records showed that the appellant was born on 1st January, 1926 and therefore he had attained the age of 60 years on 31st December, 1985 and that although the appellant had been asked to and had actually rendered service till 31st January, 1986 this was through inadvertence. The respondents say that the letter dated 28th March, 1985 was erroneously written on the basis of the rule of retirement which had existed earlier and which had subsequently been amended. 10. The earlier rule was contained in the General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Supervisory Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974 (referred to as the 1974 Scheme) and provided "12. 10. The earlier rule was contained in the General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Supervisory Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974 (referred to as the 1974 Scheme) and provided "12. Retirement: The normal age of retirement shall be 60 years: Provided that an employee attaining the age of 60 years during any month shall retire only on the 1st of the immediately following month." 11. This was amended on 21st September, 1984 by the General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) (Amendment) Scheme, 1984 (referred to as the 1984 Amendment). The relevant provisions of the 1984 Amendment are. "3. For the paragraph 12 of the said Scheme, the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely: 12. Retirement of an Employee- (i) who is the service of the Corporation or a Company immediately before the date of commencement of the General Insurance Rationalisation and Revision or Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff (Amendment) Scheme, 1984, shall retire from service when he attains the age of 60 years. (ii) * * ** ** Provided that an employee shall retire on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years /58 years, as the case may be;" 12. The only distinction between the 1974 scheme and the 1984 Amendment which is relevant for the purposes of this appeal, is that the employee who would, under the earlier law, retire on the first day of the month subsequent to his attaining the age of superannuation, would, under the 1984 Amendment, retire on the last day of the month on which he attained the age of superannuation. The respondents letter dated 28th March, 1985 asking the appellant to retire on 31st January, 1986 was clearly issued on the basis that the appellant attained the age of superannuation in January, 1986 and not in December, 1985. 13. However, the appellant's writ petition for a direction on the respondents to grant him the benefits under the 1995 Scheme was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Ramanath Patnaik, 1997 (5) SCC 181 the learned Judge held that the appellant could not get his service record corrected after his retirement. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Ramanath Patnaik, 1997 (5) SCC 181 the learned Judge held that the appellant could not get his service record corrected after his retirement. The learned Single Judge said that "It is not in dispute that the age of superannuation is 60 years. The petitioner's date of birth is 1.1.1926, as noted above, and he attained the age of 60 years (prescribed age of superannuation) on 31.12.1985 i.e. on the date next before the anniversary of his birthday" and that therefore the appellant was not eligible to enjoy the benefits of the 1995 Scheme. 14. It would appear that the learned Judge accepted as a fact that the appellant was indeed born on 1.1.26 and that it was the appellant, rather than the respondents, who was seeking to challenge the service records subsequent to the appellant's retirement. 15. We are unable to agree with the view of the learned Judge. The respondent's had on the basis of their records determined the appellant's date of retirement as being 31st January, 1986 as far back as on 28th March, 1985. The respondents and the appellant had acted on that basis. It was not the appellant who was seeking to reopen the question several years after the appellant's retirement, but the respondents. They could not do this. The observation of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Ramanath Patnaik (supra): "When entry was made in the service record and when he was in service, he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected. Therefore, any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail." although directed to the employee, would apply with equal vigour to the employer. This should have been sufficient to allow the appellant's writ petition. 16. Nevertheless, we asked the respondents to produce the records relating to the service of the appellant on the basis of which they sought to reopen the issue of the date of the appellant's retirement. The respondents affirmed an affidavit to the effect that "no service book had been maintained and/or is available in respect of the service career of the appellant in the insurance company". The respondents affirmed an affidavit to the effect that "no service book had been maintained and/or is available in respect of the service career of the appellant in the insurance company". The "records" on the basis of which the appellant's case was reopened by the respondents were three documents : the first was a letter dated 9th July, 1949 confirming the appellant's appointment addressed by the British India General Insurance Company Limited to the appellant in which there is no reference to the date of the appellant's birth; the second was an application for payment of gratuity made by the appellant on 21st February, 1986 in which the appellant's date of birth is not given; the third was a carbon copy of a letter dated 4.9.75 addressed to the respondent No.1 enclosing a type written statement showing particulars regarding supervisory, clerical and subordinate staff. The date of birth of the appellant as appearing from this statement has been given as 1. 1.1926. 17. The only relevant document was this statement and this was no evidence at all. Apart from the lack of explanation as to how the respondent No.1 could be in possession of the carbon copy of a letter addressed to the respondent No.1, there was no indication as to the basis on which the statement was prepared. 18. We also scrutinised the file produced by the respondents in order to satisfy ourselves whether the letter dated 28th March, 1975 was issued by inadvertence, as claimed by the respondents. 18. We also scrutinised the file produced by the respondents in order to satisfy ourselves whether the letter dated 28th March, 1975 was issued by inadvertence, as claimed by the respondents. We found several documents supporting the statement in that letter that the appellant's date of retirement was 31st January, 1986: i) A service statement dated 22nd June, 1956, signed by the appellant in which his date of birth is given as "January, 1926"; ii) A letter dated 6.12.85 written by the appellant to the Senior Divisional Manager stating that he would retire on 31.1.86; iii) An inter departmental letter dated 20.12.85 written by the Senior Divisional Manager stating that the appellant would retire on 31.1.86; iv) A telegram received from the respondent No. 1’s Head Office at Madras on 27th January, 1986 to the Calcutta office relating to the settlement of dues of the appellant "for the month of January, 1986"; v) A letter dated 27th January, 1986 from the Assistant Administrative Officer of the Calcutta office of the respondent No.1 to the Madras office relating to the Provident Fund contributions of the appellant for the month of January, 1986; vi) A certificate dated 22nd February, 1986 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager of the respondent No. 1 which reads: "This is to certify that Shri Sourindra Biswas Sr. Assistant of this Division retired from the services of the company with effect from 31st January, 1986. As per our records neither any amount is due from him nor any irregularities committed by him during' his service period." 19. It is clear therefore the there was no inadvertence as claimed by the respondents. There was no error in applying the relevant rule. The only obvious error which appears from the order dated 28th March, 1985, is that instead of stating as it has, that the appellant would attain the age of 60 years on 1st February, 1986, it should have stated that he would attain that age on 1st January, 1986. It was on that basis that the date of retirement was calculated as 31.1.1986 in keeping with the 1984 Amendment. 20. According to the respondents, the appellant had, in his application under the 1995 Scheme, given his date of birth as 1.1.26. According to the appellant this was a bona fide error and that he was in fact born on 2.1.26. 20. According to the respondents, the appellant had, in his application under the 1995 Scheme, given his date of birth as 1.1.26. According to the appellant this was a bona fide error and that he was in fact born on 2.1.26. part from the fact that the 1995 application was not part of service records of the appellant, on the basis of the principle enunciated in State of Orissa vs. Patnaik (supra), just as the appellant cannot seek rectification in his service records after his retirement, nor can the appellant rely on such post retiral statement to reopen the position settled almost a decade earlier. 21. We, therefore, find that the appellant was in the service of the respondent No.1 till 31.1.86 and he is entitled to the benefits under the 1995 Scheme. We do not in the circumstances go into the other issues raised viz., whether a person can be considered to be in service if he renders service after admitted superannuation nor the several decisions cited in this connection. 22. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Let a writ of Mandamus issue directing the respondents to grant the appellant the benefit,S of the 1995 Scheme, if his application is otherwise in order, within a period of four weeks from date. The appellant will be entitled to the costs of the appeal assessed at 200 GMs. 23. Let a xerox copy of this judgment duly signed by the Assistant Registrar of this Court be made available to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy thereof on payment of usual charges. S.N. Bhattacharjee, J.: I agree. Appeal allowed.