JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.: -Petitioner, Union of India, through this writ petition assails the order/judgment dated 4.3.2002 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 1634/ 2001( hereinafter referred to as the impugned order). The Tribunal, vide the impugned order, directed the petitioners herein to treat the date of the respondents birth as 8.12.1940 instead of 1.4.1940 and to pay him all allowances as also retiral benefits on the basis that the applicant retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.12.2000. Further the petitioners were directed to pay interest on the aforesaid amounts @ 10% per annum from due date upto the actual date of payment. The Tribunal proceeded on the ground that order dated 19.1.2001, passed by it in OA No. 172/2000, holding that there were no irregularities on the part of applicant insofar as the date of birth is concerned, had not been challenged in appeal, and was, therefore, final. 2. Facts culminating in the filing of the writ petition may be noted briefly. (i) Respondent R.N. Goel joined Employees Provident Fund Organization on 17.12.1962. The date of birth recorded as per Matriculation certificate was 1.4.1940. This was changed to 8.12.1940 on the basis of certificate of date of birth issued by Civil Surgeon. The Deputy Director (Vigilance), New Delhi vide letter dated 25.1.1980 informed the Regional P.F. Commissioner, Delhi that they had received complaint against Shri R.N. Goel, alleging that his date of birth has been wrongly changed to 8.12.1940. Regional P.F. Commissioner after verifying records intimated to Deputy Commissioner that date of birth of Sh. Goel was initially recorded as 1.4.1940 and subsequently changed to 8.12.1940. On 19.7.1985 Deputy Commissioner ordered the matter to be reviewed. On 24.1.1986, respondent was issued a show-cause notice whereby he was directed to explain why his date of birth should not be taken to be 1.4.1940 as originally recorded. In reply to the show-cause notice, Sh. Goel submitted that office may decide as per rules and he does not have any objection thereto. Thereafter, considering the reply submitted by the respondent, Regional P.F. Commissioner vide office memo dated 5.3.1987 decided to record the date of birth of respondent as 1.4.1940, instead of 8.12.1940 for all purposes. (ii) On 3.12.1995, respondent made a representation regarding fixation of his seniority in EO / AAO cadre in EPFO, mentioning his date of birth as 1.4.1940. Thereafter, considering the reply submitted by the respondent, Regional P.F. Commissioner vide office memo dated 5.3.1987 decided to record the date of birth of respondent as 1.4.1940, instead of 8.12.1940 for all purposes. (ii) On 3.12.1995, respondent made a representation regarding fixation of his seniority in EO / AAO cadre in EPFO, mentioning his date of birth as 1.4.1940. vide office order dated 10.9.1997, date of superannuation of Sh. R.N. Goel i.e. 31.3.1998 was notified. On 1.12.1999, respondent made representation to Central P.F. Commissioner regarding the change in his date of birth which was rejected. Respondent filed OA No. 172 /2000 against rejection of his representation by Central P.F. Commissioner. The Tribunal disposed of the application directing the petitioners herein to place the representations of Sh. Goel before the Competent Authority to enable careful and proper consideration of the matter before passing an order. It further directed petitioners to initiate action after considering the observations contained in Tribunals order and decide it as expeditiously as possible. (iii) Accordingly, on 23.4.2001 Ministry of Labour, Government of India disposed of respondents representation rejecting his request of altering his date of birth and rectified the same by restoring his date of birth as 1.4.1940. Operative part of the said order is reproduced as under- "the contention of Sh. Goel that his date of birth was altered in 1966 with approval of competent authority is baseless. In fact, Sh. Goel never made any request for alteration of his date of birth in 1966. it appears undue leniency has been shown to Sh. Goel in condoning the forgery/tampering made in the Service Book. The points/arguments made by Sh. Goel in his representation are just an afterthought and therefore untenable." Aggrieved by the said decision, respondent approached the Tribunal seeking declaration of his date of birth to be 8.12.1940 and also sought pay/ allowances, etc. and other retiral benefits. The Tribunal, as noted allowed the application of respondent and directed the petitioner department to treat the date of birth of respondent as 8.12.1940 and to pay arrears of pay and allowances. Hence present petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner submitted that neither Central P.F. Commissioner nor any subordinate officer has the power and competence to accept alteration in date of birth of any employee under their control. Counsel relies on FR 56(c) in support of the above contention. Hence present petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner submitted that neither Central P.F. Commissioner nor any subordinate officer has the power and competence to accept alteration in date of birth of any employee under their control. Counsel relies on FR 56(c) in support of the above contention. Petitioner averred in the petition that Ministry of Labour, Government of India is the concerned department in the Government for the purpose of FR 56 to consider and decide the representation of respondent regarding allowing alteration in his date of birth. He urged that according to the rules, the case of the respondent was referred to Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour for taking decision on representation of respondent. He urged that respondent even after superannuation did not make any representation to the Competent Authority. He submitted that the respondent did not raise the issue relating to his date of birth before the Competent Authority from 1987 to 1998. He further submitted that issue of alteration in date of birth was decided by the Competent Authority in the year 1987 itself. 4. Counsel stated that Sh. Goel submitted a representation dated 10.2.1995 addressed to Central P.F. Commissioner regarding fixing of his seniority in the Enforcement Officers Cadre where his date of birth was stated to be 1.4.1940. Counsel for petitioner contended that it was only after recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, where one of the recommendations made by the commission was regarding enhancement of the retirement age by 2 years in respect of all Central Government employees, as applicable to employees of EPF Organisation that respondent moved to represent against the change of date of birth. It was only when the age of superannuation was being enhanced from 58-60 years that he submitted a representation for change of date of birth. Counsel also submitted that Punjab University had also rejected the request of respondent to change his date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate from 1.4.1940 to 8.12.1940 on the basis of Medical Officers/Civil Surgeons Certificate. 5. Respondent relies on the decision in OA 172/2000 which was decided on 19.1.2001. He urged that the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 19.1.2001 and accepted the same as final and binding. 5. Respondent relies on the decision in OA 172/2000 which was decided on 19.1.2001. He urged that the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 19.1.2001 and accepted the same as final and binding. Respondent submitted that he applied to Civil Surgeon, Rohtak who was the Competent Authority to maintain records of date of birth to issue the certificate as to his correct age. Civil Surgeon, Rohtak issued certificate indicating respondents date of birth as 8.12.1940. In 1966, respondent requested the Competent Authority to change his date of birth as 8.12.1940 instead of 1.4.1940, which was accepted by the competent authority. The said change was made by Shri Sethi, the then RPFC. 6. Counsel for respondent submitted that date of birth of respondent was unilaterally changed by the petitioner in the absence of respondent in 1987. The said entry in the service book was not signed by the respondent. He submitted that respondent got to know about the said change in date of birth only in 1998 after which he preferred various representations which were subsequently rejected. Counsel contended that respondent never received OM dated 5.3.1987 intimating about change of date of birth. Counsel urged that the Tribunal in its order dated 19.1.2001 had recorded the findings with regard to there being no tampering, no forgery and the date of birth having been changed at the request of an application made by the respondent. He submitted that it was not open for the Central Government to pass an order contrary to the findings of the Tribunal when the matter was remanded back directing the competent authority to consider the observations made in the order. Counsel urged that the judgment dated 19.1.2001, is final and binding as no appeal was preferred against it. 7. We have heard Counsel for both parties and perused the documents available on record along with written submissions. During the course of arguments, Counsel for both parties had prayed that as the matter had already been remanded back earlier, the matter be decided by us finally and Court may take an appropriate decision in the exercise of writ jurisdiction itself. Firstly, contention of the petitioner is non-compliance of FR 56 Note 6 by the respondent for altering his date of birth. FR 56 Note is reproduced for the facility of reference. Firstly, contention of the petitioner is non-compliance of FR 56 Note 6 by the respondent for altering his date of birth. FR 56 Note is reproduced for the facility of reference. "An alteration of date of birth of a Government servant can be made, with the sanction of a Ministry or Department of the Central Government, or the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, or an Administrator of a Union Territory under which the Government servant is serving, if- (a) a request in this regard is made within 5 years of his entry into Government service; (b) it is clearly established that a genuine bona fide mistake has occurred; and (c) the date of birth so altered would not make him ineligible to appear in any School or University or Union Public Service Commission examination in which he had appeared, or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date of which he entered Government service." 8. We notice that the respondent had applied for change of date of birth in 1966. He had made the request well within 5 years of joining Employees Provident Fund Organisation. The said request was accepted by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. We also notice that the approval of Central Provident Fund Commissioner was not obtained as per the FR 56(1). It is also noticed that respondent, on the basis of certificate obtained from Civil Surgeon, applied to Punjab University to bring the change in matriculation certificate, which was refused. Also the change of date of birth of the respondent was not made with the sanction of Central Provident Fund Commissioner as envisaged in FR 56 Note 6. We are, therefore, of the view that Rules and instructions prescribed for change of date of birth have not been met in the present case. 9. Next, we come to petitioners contention that it was only after respondent became aware of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, where one of the recommendations made by the commission was regarding enhancement of the retirement age by 2 years in respect of all Central Government employees, which is also applicable to employees of EPF Organisation, that he made a representation as late as in 1998. We note that the respondent did not take any steps from 1987 to 1998 to challenge the reversion of the date of his birth to 1.4.1940 by Competent Authority. We are not impressed by respondents contention that he got to know about the change of his date of birth in 1998, especially when he had replied to the show-cause notice asking him why his date of birth should not be taken as 1.4.1940. We are of the view that Mr. Goel made representation before the authorities only after the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission. 10. We find that Mr. Goel had himself stated his date of birth as 1.4.1940 in his representation dated 10.2.1995 addressed to Central P.F. Commissioner regarding fixing of his seniority in the Enforcement Officers cadre. We are also unable to accept respondents contention that judgment dated 19.1.2001 in O.A. No. 172/2000 was final and binding since no appeal was preferred against the said judgment. We notice that the Tribunal had directed the petitioners herein to place respondents representation before the competent authorities to enable the authorities to consider the matter carefully before passing an order. This order of Tribunal, in our view, cannot be said to be final and binding as the competent authority was directed to take its own decision. The matter cannot be deemed as disposed of finally. Further, the Tribunal itself observed in the said judgment that it had no desire to annul the letter dated 22.12.1999 and office memo dated 5.3.1987 by which Mr. Goels date of birth was altered to 1.4.1940. The competent Authority was required to decide the matter after taking into consideration, representations of the respondent. The said discretion cannot be denuded by claiming that Tribunal required the finding to be as per other observations and obiter contained in its order and not otherwise. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that Tribunal misdirected itself and exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that respondents date of birth is 8.12.1940 and further that all retrial benefits be paid to him. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 4.3.2002 passed by the Tribunal and allow the petition in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Petition allowed.