ORDER U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the Petitioner for quashing the letter dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure-25 to the writ petition) issued by the Respondent No. 4, Director of School Education, Government of Tripura to the Head of Office, Sanhati Vidya Mandir H/S School, Jirania wherein it is stated that the correction of date of birth of the Petitioner has been examined by the government and the GA (P&T) department and it has not agreed to the proposal of the change of date of birth, since she did not apply for change of her date of birth within the prescribed time limit of 5 (five) years from the date of her first appointment in the Government Services and the Memorandum dated 03.06.2011 (Annexure-29 to the writ petition) issued by the Respondent No. 5, Headmaster, Sanhati Vidyamandir H.S. School whereby and where under the Petitioner was informed regarding her date of superannuation as on 31.07.2011 afternoon, and also to produce the relevant papers so that the authority can finalize the pension of the Petitioner, and also with a prayer for a direction to the Respondents to correct the date of birth of the Petitioner on the basis of her corrected Higher Secondary Admit Card issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. 2. Heard Mr. S Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. SC Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. S Chakraborty, learned Addl. GA for the State. 3. As agreed to by the Learned Counsel for the parties and considering the fact that in view of the impugned memo dated 03.06.2011 (Annexure-29 to the writ petition) the Petitioner is going to retire on 31.10.2011 on completion of three months extension in service, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: That the Petitioner took admission in the Bodhjung Girls' Higher Secondary School along with her elder sister and ultimately appeared in the Higher Secondary examination in the year 1972 conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: That the Petitioner took admission in the Bodhjung Girls' Higher Secondary School along with her elder sister and ultimately appeared in the Higher Secondary examination in the year 1972 conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education issued an admit card recording her date of birth wrongly as 5th July, 1953 (instead of 1st day of March, 1956) which is actually the date of birth of her elder sister, who prosecuted her studies in the same class and in the same school. With the admit card, as stated supra, the Petitioner appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination and subsequently when she passed the Higher Secondary Examination, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education issued a certificate wherein also her date of birth was wrongly recorded as 5th July, 1953. 5. On receipt of the said certificate, without any loss of time the Petitioner applied to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for correction of her date of birth in the year 1973. But the Board did not immediately correct the date of birth of the Petitioner. After long persuasion the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education corrected her date of birth on 24.09.2001 as 1st March, 1956 instead of 5th July, 1953, which is actually the date of birth of her elder sister. 6. Before correction of the date of birth, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher of a Primary School on 8th September, 1989 under the Respondents and she joined in the service on 11.09.1989 of Sanhati Vidyamandir H.S. School (Pry). On the date of joining in service she submitted a representation to the Headmistress of the school stating that her date of birth in the Higher Secondary Admit Card and in the Higher Secondary Certificate was wrong and that she had already taken up the matter with the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) for necessary correction of her date of birth. 7. When the service book of the Petitioner was opened in the year 1992, the wrong date of birth of the Petitioner as recorded in the admit card and the Higher Secondary Certificate was recorded in her service book. 7. When the service book of the Petitioner was opened in the year 1992, the wrong date of birth of the Petitioner as recorded in the admit card and the Higher Secondary Certificate was recorded in her service book. At the time of signing of the service book, the Petitioner again submitted representation before the Headmistress of the School on 1st October, 1992 wherein she stated that her representation for correction of the date of birth was pending with the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and as and when she receives the same she will produce it before the authority. 8. Finally, when the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education corrected the date of birth on 24.09.2001 Petitioner again on 24.04.2003 made a representation to the Headmistress of the Sanhati Vidyamandir HS School along with her admit card wherein her date of birth was rightly shown as 1st March, 1956. But the Headmistress did not correct the date of birth of the Petitioner even on request. Ultimately on 20.06.2006 the Petitioner again made a representation to the Headmaster of the School (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) which was received by the Headmaster on the same date. 9. After a lot of persuasion the Headmaster forwarded the representation of the Petitioner dated 20.06.2006 to the Director of School Education, Govt. of Tripura (Respondent No. 4) for his consideration and approval. 10. The Respondent No. 4 directed the Petitioner to deposit Bank Draft of Rs. 20/- for verification of the Higher Secondary Certificate and Admit Card and accordingly, the Petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount. Finally, the Respondent No. 4 rejected her prayer vide order dated 16.08.2008 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) on the ground that the Petitioner did not submit her representation within five years of her appointment. 11. Against the said order dated 16.08.2008 the Petitioner submitted a review petition to the Respondent No. 4 but the same was also rejected on 03.08.2009 without mentioning any reason. Against the said order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent No. 2, the Principal Secretary, Education (School) Department, Government of Tripura. Before disposal of the Petitioner's appeal by the Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 4 by his letter dated 19.04.2011 informed the Petitioner that his earlier order dated 16.08.2008 stands. 12. Against the said order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent No. 2, the Principal Secretary, Education (School) Department, Government of Tripura. Before disposal of the Petitioner's appeal by the Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 4 by his letter dated 19.04.2011 informed the Petitioner that his earlier order dated 16.08.2008 stands. 12. The Petitioner brought the decision of the Respondent No. 4 to the notice of the Respondent No. 2 who instantly recorded a note on the body of the letter dated 19.04.2011 wherein it is stated 'Dir. SE, Pl. re-examine the case and show me in file'. The Petitioner did not get any information as to what action the Respondent No. 4 has taken after issuance of the note by Respondent No. 2 and what was the position of her appeal to the Respondent No. 2. 13. Though the authority has not conveyed any information regarding the status of the appeal of the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 2 but she has learnt that her case would be placed before the council of Ministers for consideration and decision. But the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 does not appear to have taken any action for placing the case of the Petitioner before the Council of Ministers for consideration and decision but ultimately issued the impugned memorandum dated 03.06.2011 whereby and where under the Petitioner was asked to furnish the relevant documents for sanction of pension as her date of superannuation is on 31.07.2011, though her actual date of birth as corrected by the Board is 1st March, 1956 and her date of retirement is 31.03.2014. 14. Being aggrieved by the action of the Respondents, the Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 15. The Petitioner also stated that in a similar situation the Government of Tripura has corrected the date of birth of two other government employees namely, Smt. Bela Dey, Assistant Teacher and Sri Biswanath Bhattacharjee, a TCS Gr. I Officer and those orders of correction of date of birth have also been annexed with the writ petition (Annexure-27 and 28 respectively). 16. The State Respondents by way of filing counter affidavit tried to resist the claim of the Petitioner, although in paragraph 22 of their counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that, 'In the admit card as well as Higher Secondary passed certificate the both certificate issued by the Dy. 16. The State Respondents by way of filing counter affidavit tried to resist the claim of the Petitioner, although in paragraph 22 of their counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that, 'In the admit card as well as Higher Secondary passed certificate the both certificate issued by the Dy. Secretary West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and certificate issued by the Headmaster, Melaghar HS School and Headmaster Bodhjung HS School found on date of birth on 01.03.1956. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is fact the date of birth of Smti. Sila Banik is 1st March, 1956 instead of 5th July, 1953 according to her school certificate issued by the Headmaster, Melaghar HS School, Headmaster, Bodhjung Girls HS School and also correction made by the Dy. Secretary (Record) West Bengal Board of Secondary Education after hearing the file was sent to the GA (P&T) Department to obtain the views.' 17. It is also stated in the said paragraph that Administrative Department has intimated that the correction of date of birth of Smti. Sila Banik, A/T of Sanhati Vidyamandir H.S. School (Pry. Sec, Jirania), West Tripura has been examined by the Government in the GA (P&T) Department and it has not agreed to the proposal of the change of date of birth since she did not apply for change of her date of birth within the prescribed time limit of 5 (five) years from the date of her first appointment in the Government Service (as per Memo No. F. 23(6)-GA(P&T)/2005 dated 27.03.2007 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition). So, the Respondent No. 4 regrets his inability to concede to the prayer of the Petitioner. 18. Mr. Deb while urging for the relief sought for would contend that though the Respondents admitted the date of birth of the Petitioner as 01.03.1956 instead of 05.07.1953, but they have denied the benefit of the corrected date of birth as mentioned in the corrected admit card which has already been accepted by them. He further contended that the memorandum dated 27.03.2007 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura relating to change of Date of Birth of Government employees is not applicable so far the Petitioner is concerned as that memorandum has been given only prospective effect and not retrospective effect. He further contended that the memorandum dated 27.03.2007 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura relating to change of Date of Birth of Government employees is not applicable so far the Petitioner is concerned as that memorandum has been given only prospective effect and not retrospective effect. The present Petitioner has just after her entry into service informed and requested the authority to change her date of birth in the service book. Therefore, it cannot be said also that she did not make any application for correction of her date of birth within five years. 19. He further contended that the whole case of the Respondents is that the representations of the Petitioner are not available on record and that is due to the fire accident which occurred on 23.04.1992 as at that time most of the official documents of Sanhati Vidyamandir HS School (then High) have been gutted in the accident except the service books of the staff. He further urges that when the service books remained intact how the other documents relating to the Petitioner has been gutted. He again contended that in the whole counter affidavit, nowhere the State Respondents have taken any stand that the headmaster/headmistress did not receive any of the representation of the Petitioner filed earlier for correcting her date of birth in the service book, meaning thereby they are admitting that the Petitioner made representation within the period of 5 years. 20. He further submits that the case of the Petitioner is covered by Rule 79 of the General Financial Rules (for short, "GFR") as foundation of the date of birth is the admit card which has already been corrected by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education as the mistake/error was committed by the Board and also accepted by the Respondents. He also contended that the Respondents asked for deposit of money amounting to Rs. 20/- for verification of the record of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education which was deposited by the Petitioner, and ultimately they are not entitled to dis-believe the certificate issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. He further contended that when the Respondents in the case of other two employees corrected the date of birth at the end of their service they cannot deny the Petitioner the same benefit. He further contended that when the Respondents in the case of other two employees corrected the date of birth at the end of their service they cannot deny the Petitioner the same benefit. More so, it is not the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner is asking for recording of change of date of birth in the service book on the basis of false documents or any ingenuine date of birth. 21. Mr. Chakraborty while resisting the contention of Mr. Deb submits that the Apex Court again and again stated that at the fag end of the service the Court should not allow the prayer for change/correction of the date of birth and in the instant case the Petitioner has already retired on 31.07.2011 and at present she is enjoying the benefit of extension of service and she did not challenge the said order of extension of service. 22. He also contended that the date of birth once recorded cannot be altered except in a case of clerical error without the previous order of the department as mentioned in Rule 79 of the GFR. 23. He further contended that in view of the memorandum dated 27th March, 2007 a government servant shall have to submit application for correction of date of birth within five years from the date of his first entry into government service and no application can be submitted by the said government servant for change of date of birth on expiry of five years. 24. Referring the aforesaid memorandum he again contended that the date of birth may be corrected only when the proof is of unimpeachable in character and with the prior approval of the General Administration (Personnel & Training) Department. 25. Mr. Chakraborty finally contended that the Petitioner failed to prove that she has filed any application before the appropriate authority within the first five years of her service. 26. 25. Mr. Chakraborty finally contended that the Petitioner failed to prove that she has filed any application before the appropriate authority within the first five years of her service. 26. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the pleadings and supporting documents, question arises for consideration as to whether the date of birth recorded in the service record maintained by the employer can be corrected subsequently on the basis of application of the employee by the appointing authority and as to whether the authority is bound of accept that date of birth corrected by the competent authority, like the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education showing the exact date of birth of the employee concerned as subsequently produced to the employer. 27. There is no dispute that if the prayer for correction of date of birth is not on the basis of the genuine record and the same is allowed by the court merely on the basis of a prayer of an employee concerned without scrutinizing the fact at a belated stage, then such approach of the Court for correction of the date of birth of an employee concerned would create a chain of trouble and in such case, the right of those persons who are waiting for years to get promotion to the higher post would be affected as a result of such unwarranted approach for correction of date of birth. 28. But at the same time, when an employee can establish while claiming for correction of the date of birth that due to certain reasons he or she could not place the corrected date of birth within the prescribed period then also the authority is not totally debarred from considering the case of the employee provided the record produced by the employee for correction of date of birth is a genuine one. 29. In the instant case, it appears from the record that the contention of the Petitioner, inter alia, is that she has made representations after representations to the employer to correct her date of birth, but the same was not produced before the appropriate authority and the authority also while filing the counter affidavit did not deny the contention of the Petitioner but only tried to make out a case that there is no record regarding her representation. Mere non-availability of the record before the employer does not prove that the employee concerned did not make any representation. If for argument's sake it is considered that the representations filed prior to 20.06.2006 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and other representations were not received by the authority, then also it cannot be said that the representation dated 20.06.2006 was not received by the Headmaster of the school. More so, after the order of the Respondent No. 4, Director of School Education when the Petitioner preferred appeal before the Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 2 did not pass any reasoned order. Rather they have taken a ground that the prayer of the Petitioner cannot be considered as she did not file the appropriate application for correction of date of birth within the period of five years as mentioned in the memorandum dated 27th March, 2007, wherein it is specifically mentioned that a government servant shall have to submit application for correction of date of birth within 5 years from the date of his first entry into government service. 30. As the whole case of the Respondents is totally based on the aforesaid memorandum dated 27th March, 2007, it would be proper on the part of this Court to reproduce the same memorandum. Accordingly, the memorandum dated 27th March, 2007 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) is reproduced herein under. GOVERNMENT of TRIPURA GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (PERSONNEL & TRAINING) DEPARTMENT NO.F.23(6)-GA(P&T)/2005 Dated, Agartala, the 27th March, 2007 MEMORANDUM Subject: Change of Date of Birth of Government Employees. It has been found that in almost all the Government Departments applications are submitted by the Government Servants for correction of their dates of birth. This is done even on the verge of retirement. In many cases corrections are also allowed. The existing practice of claiming change of date of birth and allowing prayer for change of date of birth needs be streamlined. The Governor, Tripura is, therefore, pleased to lay down the following procedure/guidelines for submission of application for change of date of birth and disposal of such application: (i) A Government servant shall have to submit application for correction of date of birth within 5 (five) years from the date of his first entry into Government service. The Governor, Tripura is, therefore, pleased to lay down the following procedure/guidelines for submission of application for change of date of birth and disposal of such application: (i) A Government servant shall have to submit application for correction of date of birth within 5 (five) years from the date of his first entry into Government service. No application submitted by a Government servant for correction of his date of birth on expiry of 5 years from the date of his first entry into the Government service shall be entertained. (ii) Date of birth may be corrected only when the proof is of unimpeachable character and with the prior approval of the General Administration (Personnel & Training) Department. The above procedure/guidelines take immediate effect. By order etc. (A Debnath) Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura. 31. In the aforesaid memorandum the Respondent authority admittedly did not take any decision as to what would happen in a case where a person initially submitted admit card as a proof of date of birth but subsequently the same was corrected by the appropriate authority. In the said memorandum the authority has only decided that no application for correction of date of birth shall be entertained after five years from the date of first entry into service and in Clause (ii) it is mentioned that the date of birth may be corrected only when the proof is of unimpeachable character and with the prior approval of the General Administration (Personnel & Training) Department, meaning thereby date of birth can be corrected even after five years when the employee concerned can place the actual record of proof relating to date of birth which is of unimpeachable character with the prior approval of the GA (P&T) Department. 32. Even if we consider that the argument of Mr. 32. Even if we consider that the argument of Mr. Chakraborty, inter alia, that even in case of correction of date of birth on the basis of a proof of unimpeachable character within five years from the date of first entry into service is necessary, then also the instant memorandum is not applicable in the case of the Petitioner being the same is of prospective effect and not of retrospective effect and admittedly the Petitioner's contention that she made representations after representations since her entry into service is not denied by the Respondent except the ground taken, inter alia, that no record is available with them so far the representation of the Petitioner is concerned. 33. In annexure-R1 to the counter affidavit, i.e. the letter written by the Headmaster to the Director of School Education, it is stated that, 'the incumbent, Smt. Sila Banik, A/T (Pry) had joined at Sanhati vidyamandir HS School (Pry) 11-09-1989 as an Asstt. Teacher. Thereafter, an incident of fire had been occurred on 23.04.1992 and most of the official documents of Sanhati Vidyamandir H/S School (then High) had been gutted in the incident except service books of the staff.' It is also stated in the said letter that although no document was found in support of the matter as to whether she (Smti. Sila Banik) submitted any letter to the authority through proper channel regarding the correction of date of birth or not, but very recently, she has submitted a photocopy of a letter (old) dated 01.10.192 claiming that the letter was submitted by her on the date mentioned above. Therefore, according to this Court the Respondent, Headmaster also is not sure whether the Petitioner submitted any representation or not. More so, when the contention of the Petitioner is not denied specifically, it can be said that the said contention is admitted. 34. It is also not the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner is asking for correction of date of birth on the basis of documents which are not genuine and the date of birth mentioned by the Petitioner is also not her actual date of birth, rather the authority concerned in paragraph 22 of its counter affidavit admitted the contention of the Petitioner, inter alia, that her date of birth is 01.03.1956 and not 05.07.1953. When the authority itself admitted that the date of birth of the Petitioner is 1st March, 1956, according to this Court, they are not debarred from considering the prayer of the Petitioner and correcting the date of birth in the service book, even at a belated stage. 35. In Union of India v. C Rama Swamy and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2055 a question arose for consideration before the Apex Court as to whether, the Respondent was entitled to ask for alteration of his date of birth as entered in service record which entry had been made at the time he joined in service. The Apex Court also discussed what is bona fide clerical mistake in making entry into the official record. While discussing the words 'bona fide clerical error', the Apex Court stated that bona fide clerical error would normally be one where an officer had indicated a particular date of birth in his application form or any other document at the time of his employment but, by mistake or oversight a different date has been recorded. In the instant case, though there was no error committed by the employer while recording the date of birth in the service book but fact remains that the date of birth was recorded on the basis of a document where the date of birth of the Petitioner was recorded wrongly and just after entry into service, the Petitioner requested the authority for correcting the same and ultimately, also placed the corrected admit card where the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education corrected the date of birth of the Petitioner. After correction of the date of birth in the admit card it has to be considered that the document which was placed before the authority wherein the date of birth of the Petitioner was recorded incorrectly has also been corrected. As the foundation of the corrected date of birth is the admit card which has been subsequently corrected, it cannot be said that the date of birth recorded by the employer in the service book is the correct one. 36. As the foundation of the corrected date of birth is the admit card which has been subsequently corrected, it cannot be said that the date of birth recorded by the employer in the service book is the correct one. 36. Though the Respondent authority admitted, inter alia, that the date of birth of the Petitioner is 1st March, 1956 instead of 5th July, 1953 according to her school certificate and the correction made by the Deputy Secretary (Record) West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in her admit card, but declined to provide the benefit of the said correction. According to this Court, when the employer is satisfied regarding the date of birth, then it is the duty of the employer to correct the same even if at a belated stage as the employee is not claiming benefit which he/she is not entitled. 37. It appears that on the body of the letter dated 19th April, 2011, written by the Director of School Education to the Head of Office, Sanhati Vidyamandir HS School, Respondent No. 2 himself directed the Director of School Education to re-examine the case of the Petitioner. It also appears from the record that the Petitioner admittedly preferred an appeal to the Respondent No. 2 and the said appeal has not yet been disposed of and without disposing of the appeal, the authority is asking the Petitioner to go on superannuation by the impugned order. 38. Normally the court should not allow the prayer for correction of date of birth in the fag end of the service, but when an employee makes out a case that she made application to the authority for correction of her date of birth as recorded in the admit card and also inform the employer just after entry into the service by way of filing representation and that representation continued up to an appeal and the appeal is not yet disposed of, in that case, it is the duty of the court to do justice to the employee justice seeker. 39. As we have already stated that the memorandum dated 27th March, 2007 is not applicable so far the Petitioner is concerned, therefore, the letter dated 19th April, 2011 (Annexure 25 to the writ petition) issued by the Respondent No. 4 is also of no consequence. 40. 39. As we have already stated that the memorandum dated 27th March, 2007 is not applicable so far the Petitioner is concerned, therefore, the letter dated 19th April, 2011 (Annexure 25 to the writ petition) issued by the Respondent No. 4 is also of no consequence. 40. It also appears from the transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster, Melaghar Class XII School, Melaghar that the date of birth of the Petitioner according to the admission register of that school is 01.03.1956 when she left the school on 27.02.1969. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has prayed for correction of her date of birth only for the purpose of getting benefit in employment. 41. Furthermore, it appears from the record that as per prayer of one Smt. Bela Dey, A/T Kailashahar Govt. High School her date of birth was corrected even at the belated stage which will be evident from Annexure-27 to the instant writ petition and not only that even in the case of Sri Biswanath Bhattacharjee, TCS Gr. I, the authority after correction of his date of birth, by the Board of Secondary Education, the GA (P&T) Department after getting confirmation from the West Bengal board of Secondary Education corrected the date of birth on the last working date of said Sri Bhattacharjee (vide Annexure 28 to the writ petition). 42. Therefore, if the Petitioner is denied the same benefit then that would be discrimination between the employees. Therefore, this Court has no other option except to set aside the said memorandum dated 03.06.2011 (Annexure-29 to the writ petition) and consequent thereto the Respondents are directed to make necessary correction in the service book of the Petitioner showing her date of birth as recorded in her corrected admit card, i.e. 01.03.1956. 43. Therefore, this Court has no other option except to set aside the said memorandum dated 03.06.2011 (Annexure-29 to the writ petition) and consequent thereto the Respondents are directed to make necessary correction in the service book of the Petitioner showing her date of birth as recorded in her corrected admit card, i.e. 01.03.1956. 43. There is no doubt that any correction of date of birth as recorded in the service book is to be done in accordance with the provisions of the relevant service rules but at the same time when a person who entered into service on the basis of an admit card where the date of birth is wrongly recorded and subsequently after correction of the admit card the same is produced, in that case also the authority has the power to go for correction of the date of birth of an employee as that would be evident from the action of the employer-Respondent herein, in the case of Sri Biswanath Bhattacharjee, TCS Gr. I Officer, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner should also be provided with the same benefit. 44. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.