KSHITIJ R. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) THE Municipal School Board, surendranagar through its Administrative officer, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, rajkot dated 17. 3. 1989 in Reference (LCR) no. 35 of 1983. By the impugned award, the labour Court refused to reinstate the respondent since she was made to retire earlier than the actual date of superannuation. However, the Labour Court granted all the monetary benefits from 4. 3. 1982 to 30. 4. 1988. ( 2 ) THE respondent was working as a peon in the Municipal School Board, surendranagar. Prior thereto, she was working in the school run by Irish Mission. According to the respondent, at that time, by mistake, she had given her wrong birthdate. . The birthdate which was recorded in the Service Book, of the respondent was 6. 7. 1921. On the basis of the said birthdate, by an order dated 3. 3. 1982. she. was made to retire with effect from 5. 7. 1981 on her attaining the age of superannuation,. The respondent thereafter raised industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, bhavnagar who by his order dated 11. 1. 1983, referred the dispute to the Labour court, Rajkot for adjudication. ( 3 ) IN the Statement of Claim Ex,. 4 filed before the Labour Court, it was inter alia averred by the respondent that before joining the Municipal School Board, surendranagar, she was working in Irish mission school where her birthdate was wrongly mentioned as 6. 7. 1921 in the service Book,. She produced an affidavit of her elder cousin sister wherein her birthdate is shown to be 6. 7. 1931. However, the School Board did not accept the same- she contacted Medical Officer. Primary health Center, Ramchura, and produced the certificate showing that she was vaccinated on :26. ,2. 1929. In the said certificate, her birthdate is shown as 6. 2. 1928. The respondent, thus, made all the necessary efforts to correct her birthdate. According to her, as per the affidavit of her elder sister, she was required to be superannuated on 5. 7. 1991. and as per the medical certificate, she was required to be superannuated on 5. 7. 1989. Thus, without taking into consideration the said certificate, she was illegally made to retire on 5. 7. 1981. According to her, as per the affidavit of her elder sister, she was required to be superannuated on 5. 7. 1991. and as per the medical certificate, she was required to be superannuated on 5. 7. 1989. Thus, without taking into consideration the said certificate, she was illegally made to retire on 5. 7. 1981. The said actont on the part of the School Board was in violation of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, she is entitled to reinstatement with full back, wages, ( 4 ) THE petitioner Board by its written statement Ex. . 7 inter alia contended that the District Panchayat was administering the school management when the respondent joined the services and at that time, her Service Book, was prepared and her birthdate was shown to be 6. 7. 1921. It is further contended that since the date of joining i. e. from 13. 11. 1961 till 1974, the respondent had not raised any objection regarding her birthdate. According to the petitioner, the documents produced regarding the birthdate were not accepted in view of different dates shown therein. ( 5 ) THE Labour Court. , after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, accepted the medical certificate wherein it is stated that the respondent was vaccinated on 26. 2. 1929 and at that time, her age was 11 months and accordingly held that the respondent was born in the year 1928 and passed the award in favour of the respondent. . Hence this petition. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was due to retire on superannuation as per the birthdate recorded at her instance and as per the provisions of Bombay Civil Services rules, once the birthdate is recorded in the service book, it cannot be altered. . Hence this petition. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was due to retire on superannuation as per the birthdate recorded at her instance and as per the provisions of Bombay Civil Services rules, once the birthdate is recorded in the service book, it cannot be altered. Learned counsel further submitted that the dispute has been raised after considerably long time and there is no justification advanced by the respondent for such a delay, learned counsel further submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 171 of the Bombay Civil services Rules, once an entry of the date of birth is made in the service book, no alteration in the date of birth afterwards be allowed unless it is shown that the entry was due to want, of care on the part of some person other than the individual in question or is an obvious clerical error, it is, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, the respondent failed to point out any clerical error in making the entry of birthdate in the service book and, therefore, it cannot be changed at a later stage, Learned Counsel placed reliance on. the decision in the. case of HANSABEN S. ZAVERI VS, STATE OF GUJARAT, 1993 (2) glh 1076 . ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the labour Court in toto. ( 8 ) RULE 171 of the Bombay Civil services Rules provides that in the service book, every step in a Government servants official life, Including temporary and off and transfer and leave of absence taken, should be regularly and concurrently recorded, each entry being duly verified with reference to departmental orders, pay bills and leave statements, and attested by the head of the office. It further provides that the date of birth be verified with reference to the documentary evidence and a certificate recorded to. that effect stating the nature of the document relied on. It further provides that once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in a service book, no alteration of the entry, should afterwards be allowed, unless It Is shown that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual in question or is an obvious clerical error. It further provides that once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in a service book, no alteration of the entry, should afterwards be allowed, unless It Is shown that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual in question or is an obvious clerical error. Request made for alteration of date of birth should not be entertained after the preparation of the Service Books of the Government servants concerned and in any event, not after the completion of the probation period or five years continuous service, whichever is earlier. In a case where there is no probation period, such request should not be entertained after the completion of five years continuous service. The date of birth may, however, be permitted to be altered at a later stage if the Government is satisfied that a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed and that it should be rectified. Officers of a rank not lower than the Principal District Officer in the department concerned may correct errors in the service book which, are obviously clerical Cases in which the correctness of the original entry is questioned on other grounds should be referred to a competent authority. ( 9 ) ON the plain reading-of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the entry made in the service book, cannot be altered unless it is shown that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual in question or an obvious clerical error, The said exercise has to be completed within five years. The subsequent part of the said rule further provides that, the date of birth may, however, be permitted to be altered at a later stage if the Government is satisfied that a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed and that it should be rectified. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the birthdate of the respondent In the service book is entered as 6. 7. 1921. It is not in dispute that she applied for correction of birthdate in the year 1974. The respondent has been examined at Ex. 11. She has deposed that when she joined the services, she had not given birthdate as nobody asked about the same. 7. 1921. It is not in dispute that she applied for correction of birthdate in the year 1974. The respondent has been examined at Ex. 11. She has deposed that when she joined the services, she had not given birthdate as nobody asked about the same. She has also deposed that it was for the first time in 1973 that she was asked to give her birthdate, she inquired from the elderly persons, from her paternal aunt and she also inquired from the concerned municipality and after such inquiry, she obtained medical certificate from Ramchura village in the cross examination, she has stated that she was initially serving in missionary school where previously her mother was serving, She has not given the year when she joined services. She stated that in the Missionary school, there was no service book and the service book, was prepared when she joined the school, She denied the suggestion that she was asked about her birthdate at the time of preparation of her service book, According to her, they were three sisters out of whom two died, one immediately after her birth and the second. 10 or 11. months after her birth, She has emphathetlcally denied that she was called as Kantaben since her birth, According toher, since childhood, she was called "bachu". Her version namely that she was also known as Bachu is supported by her relative one Laxman talshi. Ex. 17. wherein he has stated that the respondent was also called as "bachiben". ( 11 ) FROM the above evidence, it is clear that the service book, was not prepared when the respondent joined missionary school, From the evidence of merubhai Ukabhai Rumalia, Ex. 19 relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, it is clear that the respondent was serving as a Peon in the District Panchayat from where she was sent in the services of the petitioner. At that time, the service book of the respondent was, sent by Taluka development Officer, Vadhwan who prepared the said service book. Thus. , the service book, of the respondent was prepared by panchayat authorities when the respondent was in the service of District panchayat, In the cross examination, the said witness has clearly admitted that he is a Government servant and he is in the govt, service since 17 years. Thus. , the service book, of the respondent was prepared by panchayat authorities when the respondent was in the service of District panchayat, In the cross examination, the said witness has clearly admitted that he is a Government servant and he is in the govt, service since 17 years. , He has also admitted that the finger prints are required to be identified and that in the service book, of the respondentthe finger prints of the respondent were not identified, He is not in a position to state as to whether the finger prints of the respondent which were put in the service book were taken in presence of the respondent and that they were of the respondent, He has also stated that as per the prevailing practice, entry regarding the birthdate has to be made as well as finger prints are to be obtained in presence of the concerned employee. However, in the instant case, it is not certain as to whether the said practice was followed or not. . According to this witness, if this type of service book is shown to him, he will not consider it as a valid service book. He has admitted that the respondent has produced proof regarding she having been vaccinated on 26. 2. 1929 when she was 11 months old. the said vaccination certificate is given by the department which is a Government department and there is no rule not to accept the said certificate, ( 12 ) READING the aforesaid evidence. it is clear that no procedure was followed while preparing the service book, of the respondent,, Even though the respondent had produced necessary certificate for changing her birthdate, the same was not taken into consideration. There is no evidence regarding the entry of birthdate in the service book. It is obvious that an error was committed at the time of making entry of birthdate of the respondent in her service book. True, the respondent could have made necessary application for correcting the birthdate within five years as provided in Rule 171. of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. However, by making an application at a later stage, it cannot be construed that she lost her right to make an application for correction of birthdate. True, the respondent could have made necessary application for correcting the birthdate within five years as provided in Rule 171. of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. However, by making an application at a later stage, it cannot be construed that she lost her right to make an application for correction of birthdate. Rule 171 also provides that the date of birth may, however, be permitted to be altered at a later stage if the Government is satisfied that a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed and that it should be rectified. In the instant case, nothing is on record to show that the concerned officer of the petitioner had taken any decision as to whether the same was a bonafide clerical mistake or not, In the circumstances, the respondent was justified in making an application with all available documents, the Medical officer has been produced through witness Gajendra Chhatbar Ex. 15 who at the relevant time was serving as a sanitary Inspector of Primary Health center. . He has produced the record of vaccination. He has stated that in the record, the entry that the respondent was vaccinated on 26. 2. 1929 was at serial No. 116 of the register. The age of the respondent is shown as 11 months,. The certificate is produced at Ex 16. As stated above, the respondent, in her evidence, as well as from the evidence of Laxman talshi, it is clear that the respondent is also known as Rachuben, a childhood name,. Therefore, the officers of the respondent could have taken into consideration this certificate. ( 13 ) HAVING gone through the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Hansaben (supra), in which this Court has laid down that under Rule 171 of the Bombay Civil services Rules, the Government has got powers to rectify the entry of birthdate even after the expiry of five years (from entry in service) provided the Government is satisfied that there is a bonafide clerical mistake that has been committed in effecting the entry about the birthdate of the employee in the service record, From the evidence, on record. It is clear that in the instant case, bona fide clerical mistake has been committed by somebody who made the entry in the service book, In any case, the respondent cannot be held, responsible for the birthdate recorded in the service book being of 6. 7. 1921 as can be seen from the evidence on record. ( 14 ) IN my opinion, therefore, the Labour Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record, The Labour Court, in the instant case, has accepted the medical certificate in which the respondent Is shown to have born in the year 1928. Counting 60 years from that year, the superannuation of the respondent would be in the year 1988, However, since the respondent was made to retire in the year 1982, the Labour Court was justified in awarding back wages and all other monetary benefits from 4. 3. 1982 to 30. 4. 1988. In this view of the matter, since I am in total agreement with the reasonings of the learned Labour Judges I see no merit in the present petition and is accordingly dismissed. ( 15 ) ). As per the interim order passed, by this Court dated 10. 10. 1990. the petitioner was asked to deposit the entire awarded amount before the Labour Court, Rajkot and the respondent was permitted to withdraw 25% of the awarded amount without any security and the balance of 75% was permitted to be withdrawn on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Labour Court, Rajkot. The Labour Court, Rajkot was directed that in case, any amount out of 75% was not withdrawn on. furnishing security, the said unwithdrawn amount was directed to be invested in the name of the respondent in a long term fixed deposit with any nationalised bank. The labour Court is directed to encash the said fixed deposit and to pay the amount to the respondent by an account payee cheque after proper verification, rule is discharged with costs, civil Application accordingly stands disposed of. .