Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in service till attaining the age of superannuation. 2. The petitioner joined in Pondicherry Corporation for Development of Woman and Handicapped Persons Ltd as Anganwadi Helper. She was later absorbed on the post as Women Development Worker vide order dated 25.5.2005. 3. At the time of joining the service, the petitioner produced affidavit attested by Notary Public, showing her date of birth as 13.4.1958. However, while regularising the service of the petitioner, the respondent directed the petitioner to furnish the original birth certificate. 4. In pursuance to the direction issued by the respondent, the petitioner applied to Chidambaram Municipality for issuance of Birth Certificate. On the failure of Municipality to issue birth certificate, the petitioner filed a suit in the Chidambaram Court, and it was pursuant to the direction issued by the Civil Court in C.C.No.3721 of 2005, that Birth Certificate, under the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, was issued to her, showing her date of birth as 13.4.58, as originally disclosed by the petitioner. 5. On the receipt of the Birth Certificate, the petitioner was issued the Identity Card by the respondent No.1, wherein, again her age was shown as 13.4.58. The petitioner therefore is to attain the age of superannuation on 13.4.2018. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2009, the petitioner applied for Cooperative Loan, therefore requested to issue pay certificate. On receipt of pay certificate, the petitioner was shocked to note, that her date of superannuation was shown as 30.11.2011. The petitioner, therefore, immediately filed representation with the respondent for correction of her date of birth in accordance with the particulars submitted by her at the time of appointment, coupled with the Birth Certificate submitted to the respondent in the year 2005. 7. No action was taken on the representation filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court with a prayer as referred above, on the ground that it was not open to the respondents to change the service record by changing the date of birth as recorded at the time of entry to service and as shown in the identity card at the back of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court with a prayer as referred above, on the ground that it was not open to the respondents to change the service record by changing the date of birth as recorded at the time of entry to service and as shown in the identity card at the back of the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent on the ground that inspite of direction issued to the petitioner, she had failed to produce the Birth Certificate, therefore, the petitioner, along with similarly situated persons, were directed to approach the Health Department in April 2006 for determining the age of the employees. The stand of the respondent that birth certificate was not furnished cannot be accepted, as it cannot be believed that petitioner after getting birth certificate after filing civil suit will not submit the certificate to respondent No.1. Further more, no explanation except, that identity card is not signed, is forthcoming for issuance of identity card showing correct date of birth. 9. It is the case of the respondent that the Director of Health and Family Welfare Services, Puducherry had informed the respondent that the medical certificate of age cannot be accurate, above the age of 18 as by that time the bone development is complete. It was also disclosed by Director, Health Department to the respondent, that the medical certification of age is essentially dependent on bone development therefore, any certificate of age by a Medical Officer for the persons above the age of 18 cannot be substantiated by medical investigation. Inspite of this, the Department took steps to constitute a Committee for the determination of the age of those helpers by associating two doctors as its members. 10. Accordingly, the age of the petitioner was recorded based on the report of the Committee coupled with the Voter ID Card, Ration Card as well as physical appearance without any intimation to the petitioner. This stand of the respondent cannot be accepted. Paragraph-2 of the Affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition reads as under: 2. I state that I have joined the services before the 1st respondent as an Anganwadi Helper and later absorbed in the post as an Woman Development Worker by an order dated 25.5.2005. This stand of the respondent cannot be accepted. Paragraph-2 of the Affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition reads as under: 2. I state that I have joined the services before the 1st respondent as an Anganwadi Helper and later absorbed in the post as an Woman Development Worker by an order dated 25.5.2005. From the date onwards, I have been continuously engaged in the employment and in the pay scale of 2550-3200 with effect from 1.5.2005. At the time of joining in the Corporation, I produced the Notarial Affidavit quoting my date of birth as 13.4.1958. At the time of absorbing me in the year 2005, the respondent corporation insisted me to produce the original birth certificate and for that purpose, I have applied for the same before the Chidambaram Municipality and also filed a case before the Chidambaram Court vide C.C.No.3721 of 2005 and obtained the birth certificate. The reason for getting this order was while applying for a certificate, the Municipality informed me that the records has been destroyed and therefore the above case was filed and birth certificate was issued by the said Chidambaram Municipality. I had produced the same before the respondent corporation on 2005 itself and in the due course, my service was regularised from 1.5.2005 and my date of superannuation as per my birth certificate and as per the respondent corporation is 13.4.2018. But now attempts have been made by the respondent corporation to complete my service records, showing as if I have attained superannuation by 30.11.2011.” 11. In reply to paragraph-2 of the affidavit, the counter reads as follows: 11. In the affidavit filed in support of writ petition the petitioner in paragraph 2 avers that she produced some materials in proof of her date of birth and because there was not accepted by the Department she had to move the court at Chidambaram and obtained orders. I submit that the claim of production of records before the Government in proof of her age is not correct, false and denied.” 12. The reading of the counter shows that the specific averments with regard to the production of the birth Certificate have not been denied, specifically as required under Law of pleading, stipulating that denial if not specific is deemed to be admitted. 13. The reading of the counter shows that the specific averments with regard to the production of the birth Certificate have not been denied, specifically as required under Law of pleading, stipulating that denial if not specific is deemed to be admitted. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent, placed reliance on an Order of this Court in WP No.17722 of 2011, to contend that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as it is not open to the petitioner to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in service till the age of superannuation based on the date of birth certificate. In this judgment, this Court had rejected the plea of an employee, to continue the service, on the ground that it was not open to the petitioner to seek alteration in age, at the end of the carrier to continue in service, in view of settled Law, that an employee at the end of carrier cannot seek change of date of birth as recorded in service record at the time of entry. 14. On consideration, I find that this judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. The petitioner is not seeking any alteration in age. The petitioner in this case is challenging the illegal action of the respondent in altering the age of the petitioner as recorded in the Service Record, which is clear from the identity card placed on record, showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 13.4.58 on the service record. 15. The fact that the petitioner, at the time of appointment, had given her age as 13.4.58 by filing an affidavit duly attested by Notary Public is not disputed, nor it is specifically denied that petitioner had placed on record the certificate issued under Sec.18 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, which is per se admissible in evidence. 16. The positive evidence on record is disputed by the respondent, to justify the change of date of birth by placing reliance on the report of the Committee, which as per the affidavit filed by the respondent also, is authenticated proof of age after attaining age of 18 years. 16. The positive evidence on record is disputed by the respondent, to justify the change of date of birth by placing reliance on the report of the Committee, which as per the affidavit filed by the respondent also, is authenticated proof of age after attaining age of 18 years. The judgment of this Court also cannot advance the case of the respondents, as petitioner is not seeking change of date of birth but has challenged arbitrary change in date of birth, based on irrelevant considerations like report of Committee, appearance in Voter Identity Card or appearance in preference to date of birth as recorded at time of entry fully supported by date of birth certificate. 17. The respondents for the reasons best known have not produced the Service Book of the petitioner, showing as to which was the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into service, nor the reason for change of date of birth, are acceptable in Law, for the reasons stated above. 18. In view of the unrebutted allegation, supported by the documentary evidence of date of birth, the action of the respondent in retiring the petitioner on 30.11.2011 cannot be sustained. 19. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the respondent is directed to allow the petitioner to continue in the service by taking her date of birth as 13.4.58 as recorded in service record and allow her to continue till the date of superannuation, with all consequential benefits. 20. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that this Court is not directing change of date of birth, but is only quashing the order of the respondent in arbitrarily changing the date of birth of the petitioner without there giving any admissible evidence in support of illegal action. 21. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.