JUDGMENT M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court as against the Order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in dismissing the O.A.No.829 of 2012 filed by the Writ Petitioner/Applicant. 2. The 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, while passing the Order in O.A.No.829 of 2012 (filed by the Writ Petitioner/Applicant) on 10.10.2012 has inter alia observed that '...The applicant is working as an Assistant Professor in Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Puducherry. The applicant did not approach the respondents for correction of date of birth immediately after entering into service. The applicant entered into service under the respondents in the year 1992. She was aware of the date of birth when she passed SSLC or XI in which the date of birth has been recorded. From the date of passing XI-th class till 1992 on which year she entered the service, she slept over the matter and she did not agitate for correction of date of birth. Thereafter, the applicant was not vigilant to correct the date of birth, if there was a wrong entry in the date of birth. Further, after making representations dated 15.03.1993 and 22.08.1995, the applicant slept over the matter and she did not approach the appropriate forum for correction of her date of birth or to file a case before this Tribunal. Thus, the applicant has failed to establish her case for grant of relief on the ground of 'laches' - and consequently, dismissed the Original Application without costs. 3. The Writ Petitioner/Applicant, as an aggrieved person, has filed the present Writ Petition in W.P.No.31800 of 2012, assailing the propriety or correctness of the Order passed by the 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, in dismissing O.A.No.829 of 2012 filed by the Writ Petitioner/Applicant. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant submits that the 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal has wrongly concluded that there was a delay on the part of the Petitioner in prosecuting her grievance/correction in her date of birth. 5.According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant, the first part of the delay as per Order of the 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal pertains to the period from the date of passing SSLC till 1992, the year during which she joined as Lecturer in Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Puducherry, on 15.07.1992. 6. 5.According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant, the first part of the delay as per Order of the 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal pertains to the period from the date of passing SSLC till 1992, the year during which she joined as Lecturer in Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Puducherry, on 15.07.1992. 6. The second part of the delay is that the Petitioner has not taken further steps pursuant to the representations made by her on 15.03.1993 and 22.08.1995. Furthermore, the delay, in not taking steps to correct the date of birth in the SSLC Certificate, is not having any material because of the fact that the Petitioner/Applicant submitted her Birth Certificate dated 20.07.1995 issued by the Department of Panchayats, Government of Kerala, within three years of joining service and the said document issued by the Public Authority is a contemporaneous one. 7. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant projects a plea that the 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal ought to have directed the Authorities to take into account the materials available on record and to arrive at a decision. 8. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant that the Petitioner has submitted a representation for correction of her date of birth at the earliest point of time, within one year from the date of entry into service. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner/Applicant has not taken further steps to prosecute her grievance made in the representations based on the assurance of the Respondents that her grievance would be looked into. 9. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for R1 and R2 that the Petitioner/Applicant has only three more years of service left and further, the Petitioner has failed to make necessary request for alteration of her date of birth within five years of entering into Government service and as such, she cannot seek alteration of her date of birth at the fag end of her service. In this regard, the Learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for R1 and R2 contends that the 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A.No.829 of 2012 filed by the Writ Petitioner/Applicant on the ground of 'delay and laches'. 10. In this regard, the Learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for R1 and R2 contends that the 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A.No.829 of 2012 filed by the Writ Petitioner/Applicant on the ground of 'delay and laches'. 10. The Learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for R1 and R2 brings it to the notice of this Court that as per Rules 79 and 80 of the General Financial Rules, 1963, every person newly appointed to a service or a post under Government, shall, at the time of appointment, declare the date of birth by the Christian era with, as far as possible, confirmatory documentary evidence such as a Matriculation Certificate, Municipality Birth Certificate etc., and normally, requests for alteration of date of birth made within a year or two of the date of superannuation are not countenanced. Moreover, requests from the Government Servants in regard to the alteration of date of birth ought not to be entertained after the preparation of the Service Books and in any event, not later than the completion of declaration of probation period or quasi-permanency, whichever is earlier. In effect, the Government of Puducherry is bound to enforce the aforesaid rules and for the sake of convenience of the Petitioner/Applicant, it cannot violate the rules. 11. The Learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for R1 and R2 vehemently contends that the Petitioner/Applicant has requested for change in her date of birth for the reason of winning a chance for promotion. No valid reason has been assigned on behalf of the Petitioner/Applicant as to why a belated claim has been made in regard to change of her date of birth in service records. 12. Finally, the Learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for R1 and R2 submits that the Petitioner having furnished her School Transfer Certificate as proof for age, at the time of entering into service in the year 1992, is estopped from making any claim for change of her date of birth in her service records at the fag end of her service. 13. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant, to lend support to his contention that the Competent Authority should apply its mind to the materials furnished by the Petitioner/Applicant in regard to her claim of actual date of birth, cites the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in R.K.Jangra v. State of Punjab and Others, (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 703, at Page 704, wherein it is observed in Paragraphs 5 to 10 as follows: “5. Since the request in the representation did not yield any result, the appellant once again made a detailed representation to Respondent 2 for the same relief. This representation was answered by Respondent 2, by directing the appellant to get the correction of date of birth done in the Matriculation Certificate from the Registrar of Punjab University. The request made in this regard is rejected by the Registrar of Punjab University by informing the appellant, that, the application filed is beyond the time-limit prescribed in the regulations of the University. 6. The Government of Punjab by its order dated 21.6.1994 amended the Punjab Civil Service Rules and in that had provided, that, employees who are already in the service of Government of Punjab may apply for change of date of birth within a period of 2 years from coming into force of the said Rules before the competent authority. The request made pursuant to the aforesaid rules, is rejected by the Registrar of Punjab University, by informing the appellant that the application filed by him is beyond the time limit prescribed in the university regulations. 7. Not being satisfied with the endorsement so issued, the appellant once again by his representation dated 20.9.1995, made a request before the State Government for correction of his date of birth. The State Government vide its letter dated 18.12.1995 had rejected the claim of the appellant. The appellant again made several representation before various authorities. All these authorities had asked appellant to furnish sufficient records/evidence to act upon his request made in his representation. 8. In spite of supplying all the information asked, since no action was taken, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Punjab High Court praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to make appropriate correction of his date of birth in the service records of the appellant. 9. 8. In spite of supplying all the information asked, since no action was taken, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Punjab High Court praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to make appropriate correction of his date of birth in the service records of the appellant. 9. The High Court without going into the merits of the case rejected the petition by its impugned order dated 29.1.2007. The High Court has observed:- “It will be just and appropriate to relegate the appellant to avail his ordinary remedy before a civil Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us by this special leave petition.” 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.- Also, in the aforesaid decision, at Page 705 in Paragraphs 11 to 13, it is observed and laid down as under: “11. The appellant, in spite of his attempts right from the year 1981, has failed to come out of the perplexing web of the bureaucracy. The appellant who is due to retire in January 2010 is praying for another extra year of service. He has made several representations in this regard without getting any results. At this juncture he only wants his representation being considered in proper perspective and in accordance with law and to give him one more year of extension of service by making appropriate correction of his date of birth in the service records. 12. In view of the above discussion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, we direct the competent authority/Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Punjab, Chandigarh to consider the representation filed by the appellant on 8.5.1987, in the light of documents and material produced by him, within a month from the date of this order, if the representation made by the appellant is available with the respondent untrammeled by any of the observations made in the earlier orders. 13. If such representation is not available in their records, the competent authority will call upon the appellant to file a fresh representation with all the particulars required and consider the same within a reasonable time.” 14. He draws the attention of this Court to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Naseem Bano (SMT) v. State of U.P. And Others, 1993 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 46, at Page 51 in Paragraph 8, it is observed hereunder: “10. He draws the attention of this Court to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Naseem Bano (SMT) v. State of U.P. And Others, 1993 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 46, at Page 51 in Paragraph 8, it is observed hereunder: “10. The other ground that has been given by the High Court for holding that the appellant was not entitled to be promoted as L.T. grade teacher was that the appellant had failed to establish that the number of L.T. grade teachers who had been appointed by promotion at the relevant date was not more than 40% of the posts and, in view of Regulation 5(2)(a) of the Regulations appointment to the post in question should have been made by the promotion. In this regard, may be stated that in paragraphs 20 to 22 of the writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court, she had specifically pleaded that in the College, there are 12 sanctioned posts in the L.T. grade out of which 10 posts had already been filled and two posts were still vacant and that out of 10 posts which were filled in L.T. grade, only one post had been filled by promotion and the rest 9 posts had been filled by direct recruitment. The appellant had also referred to the letter of the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) dated November 14, 1977 whereby it was clarified that Regulation 5(2) was to the effect that the teachers who have been appointed in the L.T. grade or in lecturer grade and who were already working in an institution should not be considered as promotees, but they shall be considered as direct appointees. In the affidavit of Govind Ram Malviya filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in reply to the writ petition, the following reply was given to the averments made in paragraphs 20 to 22 of the writ petition : 21. That with regard to the contents of paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition, it is stated that since the petitioner was not qualified to be promoted in L.T. grade, as has already been shown in the foregoing paragraphs, the petitioner can possibly have no grievance for she was not qualified either to be appointed or promoted in L.T. Grade. 15. 15. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant, taking advantage of the averment made in the counter affidavit of 1 and 2 Respondents in Paragraph 12 to the effect that '... Even going by her own version, the petitioner submits that she represented to the authorities of Education Department in 1993 and 1995', submits that 1 and 2 Respondents have not denied specifically or controverted as to the representation of the Petitioner/Applicant. Therefore, a Court of Law is to normally presume that the same has been admitted. To strengthen his contention, he relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Assam v. Union of India and others, (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 408, at Page 413 in Paragraph 18 whereby and whereunder, it is observed as follows: “18.The Union of India has filed its counter-affidavit. It has denied various assertions made by the appellants, but insofar as the aforesaid assertion of the appellants is concerned, it is not stated by them that they had arrayed the State of Assam as a party to the proceedings nor do they assert that the learned counsel for the State was heard in the matter. In our view, the respondents must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which, it does not admit to be true. The allegation of fact, if not denied/controverted in the counter-affidavit, normally it shall be taken to be admitted by the respondents.” 16. At this stage, a perusal of the averments made in O.A.No.829 of 2012 filed by the Revision Petitioner/Applicant before the 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal exhibits that she joined as Lecturer in Law in Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Puducherry on 15.07.1992 and during that period, Government Law Colleges in Puducherry were under the administrative control of the Department of Education, Government of Puducherry. Her date of birth in the Service Register at the time of her entry into service was noted as 01.12.1954 based on the Secondary School Leaving Certificate issued by the Department of Education, Kerala State. 17. That apart, the Petitioner/Applicant had come to know of her actual date of birth as 16.08.1955. Therefore, she made a representation to the 2nd Respondent on 15.03.1995 seeking correction of her date of birth. Subsequently, a Birth Certificate was issued by the Competent Authority of the Department of Panchayats, Government of Kerala on 22.07.1985, indicating her actual date of birth as 16.08.1955. Therefore, she made a representation to the 2nd Respondent on 15.03.1995 seeking correction of her date of birth. Subsequently, a Birth Certificate was issued by the Competent Authority of the Department of Panchayats, Government of Kerala on 22.07.1985, indicating her actual date of birth as 16.08.1955. After obtaining the Birth Certificate from the Competent Authority, the Petitioner/Applicant made a further representation on 22.08.1995, enclosing a copy of the same for correction of her date of birth. 18. The stand taken by the Writ Petitioner/Applicant is that when she made enquiries, she was informed that proper action would be taken on her representation. Later, the administrative control of Law Colleges under the Government of Puducherry was transferred from the Department of Education to the Department of Law. The Petitioner/Applicant renewed her request to the 1st Respondent and was informed that action would be taken on her representation. She also made a representation to the First Respondent on 30.11.2011 mentioning her earlier representations made to the 2nd Respondent relating to her request for alteration of her date of birth in her Service Register. She was under the bona fide belief that her representation would be considered. According to her, when enquiries were made, she was orally informed that legal opinion was sought in regard to her request and proper action would be taken. 19. A Government Servant, after entering into service, acquires a valuable right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as determined by the State in exercise of its powers regulating the conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds specified in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. A Government Servant, who has declared his age at the time of his appointment, is, of course, not prevented from making request subsequently for correcting his age. It is open to a Government Servant/Civil Servant to claim correction of his date of birth if he/she is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his/her date of birth as different from one earlier recorded. It is well within the domain of the Government to determine a time limit in the service rules, beyond which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government Servant can be changed. It is well within the domain of the Government to determine a time limit in the service rules, beyond which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government Servant can be changed. Till, the date of birth so recorded is altered, his/her date of birth as recorded earlier would decide the date of superannuation notwithstanding the fact that it amounts to curtailing his/her right to continue in service on the basis of his/her actual age. 20. As far as the present case is concerned, the Petitioner/ Applicant, on 15.03.1993, has addressed a communication to the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Puducherry, (through proper channel) bringing it to their notice that her date of birth in her School Register is different from the Original Register and in that School Register, the date of birth is mentioned as 01.12.1954, whereas the Original date of birth is 16.08.1955 and therefore, requested for necessary corrections to be made in her Service Records. This communication/letter of the Petitioner/Applicant dated 15.03.1993, addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Education Department, Government of Puducherry, has not been specifically denied on the part of the Respondents to say that they have not received the said letter. Inasmuch as they have not specifically denied about the letter dated 15.03.1993 of the Applicant, it is to be construed in Law that she has, in fact, made a claim for alteration of her date of birth as per letter dated 15.03.1993 and that too, when the 2nd Respondent (Secretary to Government, Department of Education, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry) in his counter in Paragraph 12 has, in fact, tacitly admitted that the Petitioner/Applicant represented to the Authorities of the Education Department in 1993 and 1995. Even going by her own version. Again, the Petitioner/Applicant made a representation on 22.09.1995 to the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Puducherry, wherein she made a specific mention about the submission of her representation on 15.03.1993 for correction of her date of birth as given in her Birth Certificate and further, she has stated that no reply has been given to her in this regard. On 30.11.2011, she also made a correction of date of birth in the Service Register by addressing a communication to the Secretary to Government, Law Department, Government of Puducherry. 21. On 30.11.2011, she also made a correction of date of birth in the Service Register by addressing a communication to the Secretary to Government, Law Department, Government of Puducherry. 21. No doubt, it is well within the powers of the Government to fix a time frame in the Service Rules for correction of a Government Servant's date of birth, after which no application for correction of date of birth can be entertained. Unless the correction of date of birth is made, his/her date of birth as entered in the records would determine his/her date of retirement notwithstanding the fact that it amounts to curtailing his/her right to continue in service on the basis of the actual age. 22. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and in view of the uncontroverted facts that the Petitioner/Applicant after joining service on 15.07.1992 as Lecturer in Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Puducherry, had made first representation on 15.03.1993 to the Secretary to Government, Law Department, Government of Puducherry, i.e. well within the period of five years of entering into service (i.e., on 15.07.1992) and the subsequent reminders made on 22.08.1995 and 30.11.2011, had also not evoked any response from the Authorities concerned. Therefore, this Court, on the basis of Equity, Fair Play, Good Conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the Respondents to apply their mind judiciously in a dispassionate manner to the materials furnished by the Petitioner/Applicant in support of her claim in regard to her actual date of birth 16.08.1955 (instead of the date of birth 01.12.1954 entered in the Service Register) and to pass appropriate orders, within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition succeeds. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Order dated 10.10.2012 in O.A.829 of 2012 passed by the 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal in dismissing the Application filed by the Petitioner/Applicant, is hereby set aside to promote substantial cause of Justice, since the same is not in accordance with law. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Order dated 10.10.2012 in O.A.829 of 2012 passed by the 3rd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal in dismissing the Application filed by the Petitioner/Applicant, is hereby set aside to promote substantial cause of Justice, since the same is not in accordance with law. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner/Applicant to furnish the Respondents with all the particulars like copies of all her representations with relevant enclosures through a fresh representation (if situation so warrants/if she so desires)} and the Authorities are concerned, are directed to pass appropriate orders in due regard to our observations in the preceding paragraphs within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without fail.