Judgment K.M. THAKER, J. Heard Mr. Rituraj M. Meena, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned A.G.P. for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has taken out present petition upon being aggrieved by the respondent authority's order rejecting petitioner's application - request to alter the entry in official record of employees' personal and service details e.g. date of appointment, date of birth, age, qualification experience etc. which was submitted just 3 months before the date of superannuation i.e. almost on the eve of superannuation of the petitioner. 3. In present petition the petitioner has prayed that : "10 (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 2-6-2012 and further be pleased to declare the same as illegal, void and in violation of principles of natural justice. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, your Lordships be pleased to stay the implementation of order passed by respondent No.2 and further be pleased to direct respondent No.2 to allow the petitioner to continue in service. (C)............. " 4. The claim of the petitioner is that his birth date is 10-5-1959 however, right from date of his entry in service 10-5-1954 has been recorded, in the service record, as his birth-date. The petitioner has also claimed that he made representation in February 2012 i.e. just 3 months before he was to retire, on superannuation, on 31-5-2012 to make alteration in service book/official record so as to reflect 10-5-1959 as his birth-date, instead of 10-5-1954. 4.1. The competent authority did not accept the said representation dated 22-2-2012 and upon rejection of his application the petitioner is aggrieved and has preferred present petition and prayed for above-quoted relief. 5. Mr. Meena, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that during his study the petitioner had changed schools and while in other School Leaving Certificate 10-5-1959 is mentioned as his birth date, in the last certificate which was issued at the time when he left the school instead of 10-5-1959, inadvertently 10-5-1954 came to be mentioned as his birth date in his last School Leaving Certificate. It has also emerged from the record that it is the petitioner himself who had submitted School Leaving Certificate at the time of appointment and on the basis of the documents supplied by the petitioner himself that the entries in service office record are filled up. 5.1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner claimed that petitioner was not aware that in his service record, his birth date, and that therefore, he had not taken any action during his tenure of service with the respondent. 5.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner also submitted that when the petitioner noticed the said aspect he made representation dated 22-2-2012 which has not been entertained and petitioner has been made to retire w.e.f. 31-5-2012 by considering 10-5-1954 as his birth date. 5.3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the respondents have relied on Rule 40(2)(g) while refusing to entertain petitioner's representation however, competent authority has failed to take into account Rule 40(2)(f) and that therefore action and decision of respondent authorities is incorrect. 6. The petition is opposed by Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned A.G.P. 6.1. Mr. Goutam, learned A.G.P. has submitted that petitioner is not justified in claiming that he was not aware about the entry in official record because at the relevant time the entry was endorsed by the petitioner. 6.2. Mr. Goutam, learned A.G.P. also contended that even otherwise the seniority list which also contains the entry recording birth dates of employees is regularly published in month of January every year, hence petitioner was aware about the details/entry recorded in the official record and through the publication of such list the petitioner used to get the intimation about the entry/details from time to time and the petitioner's service book also contained the entry and that therefore, also the petitioner is not justified in claiming that the petitioner had no idea about the entry in the official record. 6.3. Mr. Goutam, learned A.G.P. also submitted that respondents have not committed any error in relying on Rule 40(2)(g). Mr. Goutam, learned A.G.P. submitted that the authority has taken into account all provisions i.e. Rules 40(2)(f) and (g) and (h) and in light of the said provisions competent authority has not entertained petitioner's representation which came to be submitted at the fag-end of his service. Mr. Goutam, learned A.G.P. also submitted that there is no mistake or arbitrariness in decision of the competent authority. 7. Mr. Goutam, learned A.G.P. also submitted that there is no mistake or arbitrariness in decision of the competent authority. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. and also material placed on record of present petition. 8. So as to consider and appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is relevant to take into account relevant Rules. The said Rules read thus : "40. Procedure for writing the events and recording the date of birth in the service book : (1) In the service book every step in a Government employee's official life, including temporary and officiating promotions of all kinds, increments and transfers and leave availed of should be regularly and concurrently recorded, each entry being duly verified with reference to orders of the department, pay bills and leave account attested by the Head of the Office. If the Government employee is himself the Head of an Office, the attestation should be made by his immediate superior. If the Government employee is himself the Head of an Office, the attestation should be made by his immediate superior. (2) While recording the date of birth, the following procedure should be followed - (a) the date of birth should be verified with reference to documentary evidence and a certificate recorded to that effect stating the nature of the document relied on; (b) in the case of a Government employee, the year of whose birth is known but not the date, the 1st July should be treated as the date of birth; (c) when both the year and the month of birth are known, but not the exact date, the 16th of the month should be treated as the date of birth; (d) in the case of a Government employee who is only able to state his approximate age and who appears to the attesting authority to be of that age, the date of birth should be assumed to be the corresponding date after deducting the number of years representing his age from his date of appointment; (e) when the date, month and year of birth of a Government employee are not known, and he is unable to state his approximate age, the age by appearance as stated in the medical certificate of fitness, in the prescribed Form in Appendix-III should be taken as correct, he being assumed to have completed that age on the date the certificate is given, and his date of birth reduced accordingly; (f) when 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 known, 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; (g) requests made for alteration of date of birth should not be entertained after the preparation of the service book of the Government employees concerned and in any event not after the completion of the probation period or five years continuous service, whichever is earlier. In the case where there is no probation period, such request should not be entertained after the completion of five years continuous service. In the case where there is no probation period, such request should not be entertained after the completion of five years continuous service. (h) the date of birth may, however, be permitted to be altered at a later stage if the Government is satisfied that a bona fide clerical mistake has been committed and that it should be rectified." 8.1. It emerges from the above-quoted provision that the service details/history of Government employee, including personal details such as date of birth, date on which the increment would fall due etc. are to be recorded and maintained in his service book. Accordingly, all details including the date of birth of the petitioner also was recorded and maintained in petitioner's service book. This aspect is not even disputed or denied by the petitioner. 8.2. Thus, now almost on the eve of his superannuation the petitioner is not justified in claiming and contending that he was not aware about the entry regarding date of birth recorded in the official record. 8.3. Furthermore, the provisions under Rule 2 provide, in detail, the procedure to be followed, and the time-limit during which the procedure should be followed, for getting any change made/recorded in the official record with reference to personal details or service history of an employee. 8.4. The provision under sub-rule (2) also provides, the procedure which should be followed when the date of birth or month or year of birth are not known to the petitioner or when any reliable material/document is not available with the petitioner. 8.5. Likewise, the provision under sub-rule (2), particularly clause (g) of sub-rule (2) specifically and expressly provides that if any change as regards birth date is required to be made in the official record then necessary action should be taken by the concerned employee before completion of probation period or before completion of 5 years continuous service, whichever is earlier. 8.6. The said provision expressly provides that any request for alteration of date of birth shall not be entertained after the period prescribed under the rule. 9. Besides above mentioned relevant provision, it is also necessary and appropriate to take into account relevant facts. 9.1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Police Constable w.e.f. 21-8-1981. 8.6. The said provision expressly provides that any request for alteration of date of birth shall not be entertained after the period prescribed under the rule. 9. Besides above mentioned relevant provision, it is also necessary and appropriate to take into account relevant facts. 9.1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Police Constable w.e.f. 21-8-1981. Thus, since August, 1981 the petitioner has been working with respondent and since then (i.e. since 21-8-1981) the entry about petitioner's birth date is recorded in service book as per Rules however, until February, 2012 i.e. for almost 31 years the petitioner never took any steps for getting the entry in office record and in his service book changed and did not get altered the birth date recorded in the official record. 9.2. The most important aspect to be taken into account is that it is admitted by the petitioner that he himself had submitted the School Leaving Certificate to the competent authority at the time of his appointment and the said certificate reflected 10-5-1954 as his birth date and the authority made entry in the office record including petitioner's service book - as per the details in the certificate submitted by the petitioner. 9.3. Besides this, what is more pertinent and relevant to note is the fact that the School Leaving Certificate which reflect petitioner's birth date as 10-5-1954 and was issued to the petitioner in July, 1979. Thus, petitioner had knowledge about the date of birth recorded in School Leaving Certificate, since 1979. 9.4. Thus, the entry in the official record regarding date of birth was not made by the competent authority without any basis, but it was made on the basis of the document (School Leaving Certificate) submitted by the petitioner himself. 9.5. The said entry remained on office record and in petitioner's service book without any objection or dispute from petitioner for almost 31 years from August, 1981 until September, 2011 i.e. for almost 31 years, the petitioner did not take any steps to get any change carried out in the official record or even in his School Leaving Certificate, though the said certificate was issued in 1979. 9.6. It was only 3 months before due retirement superannuation that the said that the petitioner, for the first time, made a representation in February, 2012 requesting to make change in the record and in the entry reflecting his birth-date. 10. 9.6. It was only 3 months before due retirement superannuation that the said that the petitioner, for the first time, made a representation in February, 2012 requesting to make change in the record and in the entry reflecting his birth-date. 10. It is not in dispute that the respondent authorities made necessary entry in the official record as per the School Leaving Certificate submitted by the petitioner himself. 10.1. It is also not in dispute that for the interregnum of 31 years petitioner's official record has continuously reflected 10-5-1954 as his date of birth. 10.2. It is also not in dispute that every year in January seniority list of the employees is published and the list also contains date of birth of the employees, and thereby, the employees get to know relevant details, as recorded in official record, every year, and that therefore, the petitioner is not justified in claiming that he was not aware about said detail/entry in official record including his service book until fag-end of his service. 10.3. On this count respondent authorities has stated in the affidavit dated 18-2-2013 that: "3. With respect to Paragraph 6, it is submitted that no doubt it is true that the seniority list was published in the month of January every year, however it is also true that the same was never shown to the petitioner by the concerned police stations in his career, no matter where he's posted. It is submitted that had the petitioner come to know about the same earlier, the said error would have been corrected long back. 4. With respect to Paragraph 7, the contentions therein are admitted by the petitioner and it is true that the petitioner had made an application to the concerned department on 24-2-2012 after providing all the necessary details including the corrected School Leaving Certificate. 5. With respect to Paragraph 8, it is submitted that the respondent herein had wrongly interpreted Rule 40(2)(g) of the Gujarat Service Rules, 2002. It is submitted that a clerical error can be corrected at any stage i.e. even after the period of 5 years. 5. With respect to Paragraph 8, it is submitted that the respondent herein had wrongly interpreted Rule 40(2)(g) of the Gujarat Service Rules, 2002. It is submitted that a clerical error can be corrected at any stage i.e. even after the period of 5 years. It is further submitted that the respondents have not considered Rule 41(F) of the G.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 2002 which says that - "When once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in the service book, no alteration of the entry shall be allowed unless it is known that the entry was due to want of care on part of some other person other than the individual in question is an obvious clerical error." 6. It is submitted that if we read Rule 41(F) along with the Rule 41(H), it would be clear that a mistake on part of any other person other than the individual would be an acceptable ground for alteration of birth date even after a period of 5 years. 7. With respect to Paragraph 9, it is submitted that it is true that the respondent herein have rejected the representation/application dated 22-2-2012. However, it is denied that the same was rejected as the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria as mentioned under Rule 40(2)(g). 8. With respect to Paragraph 10, the petitioner also relies on Rule 41(F) along with Rule 41(H) which would allow the respondents to alter the birth date if the mistake was due to any other person. In the respectful submission of the petitioner, the word 'other person' would include the school authorities who have accepted their mistake and have given a corrected certificate of the petitioner. 11. In the respectful submission of the petitioner, the word 'other person' would include the school authorities who have accepted their mistake and have given a corrected certificate of the petitioner. 11. Thus, (a) when the details in the official record including service book are recorded on the basis of School Leaving Certificate submitted by petitioner himself; and (b) when undisputedly the said School Leaving Certificate reflected 10-5-1954 as petitioner's birth date; and (c) when the petitioner had not taken any steps to get the said School Leaving Certificate altered in accordance with law before his appointment or before submitting said School Leaving Certificate at the time of his appointment or immediately after his appointment or during his probation period or within 5 years as per the Rules or even within reasonable time after his appointment, likewise, when the petitioner did not take any steps (since the date of his appointment) to get the entry (entry of petitioner's birth date) in office record and service book altered after it was recorded in August, 1981 petitioner's excuse that he was not aware about entry of his own birth date in his School Leaving Certificate and/or in his service record/service book cannot be accepted. 12. It is pertinent during the past period of about 31 years the petitioner had ample time as well as opportunities to take proper and necessary steps for alteration in the record. 12.1. Moreover i.e. in addition to above provisions, the seniority list wherein, besides other details, the dates of birth of employees (including the petitioner) are mentioned is published in January every year. Thus, upon service list being published every year the petitioner had numerous opportunities to get the birth date/entry in the record altered. 12.2. Despite such opportunity the petitioner did not take any action for last about 31 years to get any change recorded or carried out with regard to his birth date in the official record. In background of such facts, it is not possible to accept petitioner's excuse that for 31 years he was not aware about the details mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, in his service book and in the office record. 12.3. In background of such facts, it is not possible to accept petitioner's excuse that for 31 years he was not aware about the details mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, in his service book and in the office record. 12.3. The concerned employee cannot sleep over a mistake and cannot remain negligent or careless in getting the mistake rectified in accordance with prescribed procedure and if the concerned employee does not take any action within prescribed time then at belated stage he cannot claim, as a matter of right, that alteration or correction may be made in the office record. 12.4. If such request is entertained, it would amount to allowing the concerned employee to take disadvantage of his own negligence or rewarding negligence. 12.5. Such undeserved sympathy cannot be shown, more particularly because such actions always have chain reaction inasmuch as the right or chances of other employees are obstructed or delayed. 12.6. Therefore, in cases where applicable rules prescribe time-limit for seeking alteration in office record then such time-limit should be strictly and diligently adhered to and enforced and any leniency should not be allowed. 12.7. Any claim made beyond prescribed time-limit should not and cannot be entertained, except in accordance with the Rules. 12.8. Even in the cases where any time-limit is not prescribed by the rules, such request application must be made within reasonable time and any application request made after unreasonable delay would not qualify for consideration and employer would be justified in rejecting such request, more so when the delay is not explained. 12.9. Any request for alteration in office record for changing date of birth of an employee, when made after prescribed time-limit or beyond reasonable time in cases where any time is not fixed by rules would, either, amount to negligence which cannot be countenanced or in several cases such belated request could be a calculated move on part of the employee inasmuch as the concerned employee, in such cases approach the Court at eleventh hour and challenge the entry in office record by placing one or other document on record of the application with an idea of prolonging final action by the employer. 12.10. 12.10. For all such reasons, the competent authority would be justified in insisting that request for alteration in entry of birth date in office record should be made within prescribed time-limit (if time is prescribed in rules) or within reasonable time (if rules do not prescribe time-limit). Requests which are made belatedly are hit by delay and latches and the decision of the employer of not entertaining such claim cannot be faulted. 13. The reliance placed by the petitioner on clause (f) is also misconceived inasmuch as the expression on the part of some person other than individual in question would apply to the person making entry in official service record of the petitioner and not to a third party i.e. other than the concerned employee and employer/a representative of employer a clerk or any other person employed by the school. 13.1. Even if it is presumed that the provision under clause (f) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 40 would take in its fold third party e.g. clerk or other employee of the school who mentioned/recorded date of birth in School Leaving Certificate or the clerk who maintained/recorded birth date in the birth and death register etc. then also the said provision under clause (f) cannot be divorced or detached from clause (g) and the time-limit prescribed under said clause (g). 13.2. The period prescribed under clause (g) would be applicable to the eventuality contemplated under clause (f) also. 13.3. So as to give further benefit and latitude to the petitioner even if it is also presumed that the period prescribed under clause (g) does not apply to clause (f) then also, it would be obligation of the employee to take necessary action for rectification of entry recording the employee's birth date, if there is any error in office record, within reasonable time. Any request for alteration/rectification of entry in office record on the eve of retirement or just three months before the date on which the employee is going to retire, cannot be entertained and no fault can be found with order rejecting such request. 13.4. Any request for alteration/rectification of entry in office record on the eve of retirement or just three months before the date on which the employee is going to retire, cannot be entertained and no fault can be found with order rejecting such request. 13.4. Besides this, while considering such requests the Court has to be alive to the claim of other employees who stand in queue after the petitioner for several benefits like regularization/permanency in service, seniority/promotion, allotment of quarters (if applicable) and various other aspects related to service and that therefore also such belated rather inordinately delayed claim should not be and cannot be entertained. Such requests, if granted, cause chain reaction and many a times rights and expectations of other employees are affected if undue and undeserved sympathy is shown ignoring the limitations and restrictions prescribed by Rules or by ignoring unreasonable, unjust and unexplained delay or by ignoring negligence of the employee. 14. Furthermore, clause (h) of the said rule provides that at a later stage error can be corrected if it is shown to be bona fide clerical error. However, in view of the fact that the entry was made on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate submitted by the petitioner himself, it cannot be said that any error was committed by any employee of the respondent in recording petitioner's birth date. Besides this, it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not take any action to get alleged mistake corrected during the period of probation or before completion of 5 years from the date of appointment/continuous service, and that therefore, petitioner's case is covered under Rule 40(2)(g). 15. In present case, the petitioner would claim and allege that a mistake was made by other person however, actually any error cannot be said to have been committed in recording petitioner's birth date in the office record and/or in petitioner's service book inasmuch as the entry was made on the basis of the certificate submitted by the petitioner himself. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is discrepancy between the details in the School Leaving Certificate submitted by him and what is recorded in the office record. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is discrepancy between the details in the School Leaving Certificate submitted by him and what is recorded in the office record. So far as the petitioner's claim about alleged error in School Leaving Certificate is concerned it is pertinent that it is the petitioner who did not get the alleged mistake corrected for about 33 years after having left the school and/or even when he submitted the certificate at the time of appointment and/or for almost 31 years after his appointment. Hence, after such long time and delay petitioner cannot throw the blame on the school/staff of school and cannot take advantage of said provision under the Rules. 16. When the petitioner did not take any steps to get the alleged mistake corrected and submitted his School Leaving Certificate at the time of appointment, and thereafter, also did not take any steps during reasonable period as contemplated under Rule 42(2)(g), then now after almost 3 decades, it is not open to the petitioner to throw blame on the school and/or school staff and/or cannot take advantage of and/or cannot take shelter under Rule 42(f) and/or (g) and/or (h) of the Rules more particularly in light of the provision under Rule 40(2)(g) because Rule 40(2)(f) cannot be read or construed by ignoring or overlooking Rule 40(2)(g) or by detaching or divorcing Rule 40(2)(f) from Rule 40(2)(g). 17. Thus, on overall facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner's request cannot be accepted inasmuch as it is made not only beyond the period contemplated under Rule 40(2)(g) but also because it is made just 3 months before the date of retirement and after inordinate and inexcusable delay of almost 31 years. 18. The petitioner's request is thus hit by and bared by delay and laches, and therefore, also the request and the petition does not deserve to be entertained and the relief prayed for cannot be granted. The petitioner's conduct clearly and eloquently reveals negligence, which also justifies employer's decision and restrains the Court from granting relief as it would amount to ignoring negligence or rather giving premium for negligence. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in the decision in case between Union of India v. Rarnam Singh, AIR 1993 SC 1367 in Paragraph Nos. 6, 8, 11, and 14 observed that: "6. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in the decision in case between Union of India v. Rarnam Singh, AIR 1993 SC 1367 in Paragraph Nos. 6, 8, 11, and 14 observed that: "6. A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispersed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant, is thus of utmost importance for the reason that right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied to by the Courts and Tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time-limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly, but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the Courts or Tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. The law of limitation may operate harshly, but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the Courts or Tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age. Indeed, as held by this Court in State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka, 1971 (2) SCR 687 a public servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the service record and apply for its correction but till the record is corrected he cannot claim to continue in service on the basis of the date of birth claimed by him. This Court said : "The date of compulsory retirement under F.R. 56(a) must in our judgment, be determined on the basis of the service record, and not on what the respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected consistent with the appropriate procedure. A public servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the service record, and may apply for correction of the record. But until the record is corrected, he cannot claim that he has been deprived of the guarantee under Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution by being compulsorily retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the footing of the date of birth entered in the service record. 8. According to the above amendment, it is obvious that the request for correction of date of birth is required to be made by the Government servant within five years of his entry into Government service and his date of birth may be corrected if it is established that, a genuine bona fide mistake had occurred while recording his date of birth at the time of his entry into Government service. The C.A.T. in the instant case was of the opinion that the bar of five years could only apply to such Government servants who joined service after 1979, when the amendment came into force and that the said period of limitation would not apply to Government servants who were in service for more than five years prior to 1979. 11. The C.A.T. in the instant case was of the opinion that the bar of five years could only apply to such Government servants who joined service after 1979, when the amendment came into force and that the said period of limitation would not apply to Government servants who were in service for more than five years prior to 1979. 11. The approach of the Tribunal does not commend to us as it tends to create an invidious discrimination, unsustainable in law, by creating two artificial classes of Government Servants between those who joined service before and after 1979. It is a too simplistic way of looking at the issue, ignoring the ground realities and the intention of the rule making authority to discourage stale claims and non-suit such Government servants who seek the alteration of their recorded date of birth belatedly and mostly on the eve of their superannuation. To say that the respondent, even though, he signed the service book at a number of places at different times and saw the seniority lists, may not have still come to know as to what his recorded date of birth was, is to ignore human conduct and put premium on negligence. The observations of C.A.T. quoted above are neither logical nor sound. Of course, Note 5 to F.R. 56(m) was incorporated only in 1979 and it provides for request to be made for correction of date of birth within five years from the date of entry into Service but what is necessary to be examined is the intention of the rule making authority in providing the period of limitation for seeking the correction of the date of birth of the Government Servant viz. to discourage stale claims and belated applications for alteration of date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of initial entry. It is the duty of the Courts and Tribunals to promote that intention by an intelligible and harmonious interpretation of the rule rather than choke its operation. The interpretation has to be the one which advances the intention and not the one which frustrates it. It is the duty of the Courts and Tribunals to promote that intention by an intelligible and harmonious interpretation of the rule rather than choke its operation. The interpretation has to be the one which advances the intention and not the one which frustrates it. It would not be the intention of the rule making authority to give unlimited time to seek correction of date of birth, after 1979, to those Government servant who had joined the service prior to 1979 but restrict it to the five year period for those who enter service after 1979. Indeed, if a Government servant, already in service for a long time, had applied for correction of date of birth before 1979, it would not be permissible to non-suit him on the ground that he had not applied for correction within five years into service, but the case of Government servant who applied for correction of date of birth only after 1979 stands on a different footing. It would be appropriate and in tune with harmonious construction of the provision to hold that in the case of those Government servants who were already in service before 1979, for a period of more than five years, and who intended to have their date of birth corrected after 1979, may seek the correction of date of birth within a reasonable time after 1979 but in any event not later than five years after the coming into force of the amendment in 1979. This view would be in consonance with the intention of the rule making authority. 14. In the instant case, the date of birth recorded at the time of entry of the respondent into service as 20th May, 1934 had continued to exist, unchallenged between 1956 and September 1991, for almost three and a half decades. The respondent had the occasion to see his service book on numerous occasions. He signed the service book at different places at different point of time. Never did he object to the recorded entry. The same date of birth was also reflected in the seniority lists of L.D.C. and U.D.C., which the respondent had admittedly seen, as there is nothing on the record to show that he had no occasion to see the same. Never did he object to the recorded entry. The same date of birth was also reflected in the seniority lists of L.D.C. and U.D.C., which the respondent had admittedly seen, as there is nothing on the record to show that he had no occasion to see the same. He remained silent and did not seek the alteration of the date of birth till September, 1991, just a few months prior to the date of his superannuation. Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches on the part of the respondent to seek the necessary correction would in any case have justified the refusal of relief to him. Even if the respondent had sought correction of the date of birth within five years after 1979, the earlier delay would not have non-suited him but he did not seek correction of the date of birth during the period of five years after the incorporation of Note 5 to F.R. 56 in 1979 either. His inaction for all this period of about thirty-five years from the date of joining service, therefore precludes him from showing that the entry of his date of birth in service record was not correct. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in issuing the direction in the manner in which it has been done. The application for correction of date of birth, entered in the service book in 1956, for the first time made in September, 1991, was hopelessly belated and did not merit any consideration. As already noticed, it had not been made even within the period of five years from the date of coming into force of Note 5 to F.R. 56 (m) in 1979. The Tribunal, therefore, fell in error in issuing the direction to correct his date of birth and the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained." In the case between Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran, AIR 1993 SC 2647 in Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "5………An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. 5 and 6, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "5………An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases, it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their dates of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior." In the case between State of Haryana v. Satish Kumar Mittal, AIR 2010 SC 3312 in Paragraph Nos. 14 to 17 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "14. As recorded above, it has been held time and again that the application for correction of date of birth is also to be looked into from the point of view of the concerned department and the employees engaged therein. The other employees have expectations of promotion based on seniority and suddenly if such change is permitted; it causes prejudice and disturbance in the working of the department. It is, therefore, quite correct for the State to insist that such application must be made within the time provided in the rules, say, two years, as in the present case. 15............. 16. In the circumstances in our view, the High Court as well as the Courts below clearly erred in entertaining the claim of respondent No. 1 for correction in his date of birth at a belated stage. In such a matter, we are concerned with the correction in the date of birth for the purpose of service record and not for any other purpose. In such a matter, we are concerned with the correction in the date of birth for the purpose of service record and not for any other purpose. The observation of this Court in Para 7 of the Union of India v. Harnam Singh, 1993 (2) SCC 162 in this behalf are quite apt. "7. A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied by the Courts and Tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time- limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the Courts or Tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the Courts or Tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age.................." 17. This being so, the Courts should not have entertained the claim of the first respondent belatedly and beyond the period provided in the rules. The rules, in the instant case, all throughout required such application to be made within two years. Therefore, the Courts clearly erred in finding fault with the appellant for allegedly applying the Notification of 13-8-2001 retrospectively which was not the case over here." 20. Even in those cases where there are no rules or the rules do not prescribe any specific time-limit for making application for alteration or change in the entry regarding date of birth in office record, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that application must be made within reasonable time and department would be justified in rejecting or refusing belated applications. In this context reference may also be made, in addition to above mentioned decision, to the decision in case between State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, AIR 2011 SC 3418 wherein Paragraph Nos. 12 to 16 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that : "12. Viewed in this perspective, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a manifest error of law in ignoring the vital fact that the respondent had applied for correction of his date of birth in 1990, i.e., 25 years after his induction into service as a constable. It is evident from the record that the respondent was aware ever since 1965 that his date of birth as recorded in the service book is 1st June, 1942 and not 30th June, 1945. It is evident from the record that the respondent was aware ever since 1965 that his date of birth as recorded in the service book is 1st June, 1942 and not 30th June, 1945. It had come on record of the Tribunal that at the time of respondents medical examination, his age as on 27th September, 1965 was mentioned to be 23 years and his father's name was recorded as Gayadin; and in his descriptive roll, prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police as well, his fathers name was shown as Gayadin and his date of birth as 1st June, 1942 and this document was signed by the respondent and the form of agreement known as Mamuli Sipahi Ka Ikrarnama was filled up by the respondent himself with the very same particulars. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of the Tribunal rejecting respondents plea that it was for the first time in the year 1990, when he was promoted as Head Constable, that he noticed the error in the service record was vitiated. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex-facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book." In the case between State of Gujarat v. Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi, AIR 2006 SC 2735 : [2007 (2) GLR 1064 (SC)] in Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "9. 9 and 10 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "9. Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. But, of late a trend can be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of their retirement raise a dispute about their records, by either invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India or by filing applications before the concerned Administrative Tribunals, or even filing suits for adjudication as to whether the dates of birth recorded were correct or not. 10…………..If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service books; By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused injustice to his immediate junior." 21. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused injustice to his immediate junior." 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the employee does not take any care for getting bona fide mistake corrected during reasonable time, and comes out with a claim that his birth date is not recorded correctly in official record, such request may not be accepted by employer and employer will be justified in retiring the employee as per details mentioned in the record. For the foregoing reasons the petitioner's request does not deserve to be, and cannot be, accepted. The petitioner has failed to justify his request and/or to explain and justify the inaction for almost 31 years. The petition, therefore, fails and does not deserve to be entertained and the same is accordingly disposed of. (HSS) Petition dismissed.