JUDGMENT M.M. DAS, J. : The State and its functionaries have preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging a confirming judgment passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Berhampur on 15.3.2004 as well as the decree drawn up in the said appeal being R.F.A. No.30/10/2003/2003-GDC by which the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2002 and 3.5.2002 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in T.S. No.31 of 2000 was confirmed. 2.The appeal has been admitted on two substantial questions of law framed during admission which are as follows : (i)Whether in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India v. Harnam Singh, AIR 1993 SC 1367 and Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy and others, AIR 1997 SC 2055 , Civil Court can grant decree/relief by allowing change in the date of birth at the fag end of service career of the plaintiff ? (ii)Whether the Courts below were justified in saying that Ext.A does not estop the subsequent plea of the plaintiff-respondent regarding date of birth ? 3.The facts involved in this cases are that the respondent filed T.S. No.31 of 2000 as plaintiff seeking the following reliefs : (a)Suit may be admitted for early adjudication since the plaintiff is required to retire from Government service on 31.10.2010 basing on wrong and erroneous date of birth challenged. (b)Wrong and erroneous date of birth as 11.10.1942 without any documentary evidence may be scored out from the relevant records available in the office of defendant No.3. (c)Correct the date of birth of the plaintiff being 21.8.1944 on the basis of the documents placed before the Hon’ble Court may be accepted and defendants may be directed to enter the said date of birth in the Service Book of the plaintiff. (d)Defendants may be restrained from issue of retirement notice to the plaintiff. (e)Defendants may further be directed not to allow the plaintiff to retire from Government service on 31.10.2000. (f)Plaintiff may be allowed to retire from Government service on superannuation on 31.8.2002. (g)Any other relief as would be found appropriate and reasonable. (h)Suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff with cost thereof. (e)Defendants may further be directed not to allow the plaintiff to retire from Government service on 31.10.2000. (f)Plaintiff may be allowed to retire from Government service on superannuation on 31.8.2002. (g)Any other relief as would be found appropriate and reasonable. (h)Suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff with cost thereof. 4.The plaintiffs case is that he was appointed as a Job Contract Amin on 27.12.1961 and was allowed to continue as such in different grades till he was regularly absorbed as Amin in the establishment of defendant No.3, i.e., Settlement Officer, Ganjam-Koraput Major Settlement, Berhampur-4, Ganjam. At the time of regularization of his service, he produced the School Leaving Certificate in compliance to the office order No.3343 dated 19.4.1972 issued by the said defendant No.3 wherein his date of birth was shown as 21.8.1944, but the defendant No.3 in the service book of the plaintiff without any basis entered his date of birth as 21.10.1942 relying on the D and Q Rolls maintained for Job Contract Amins. When the plaintiff came to know about the same, he made a representation to the Settlement Officer-defendant No.3 for correction of his date of birth on the basis of his School Leaving Certificate. In the gradation list published by the defendant No.2 on 15.1.1973, his date of birth was recorded as 21.8.1944. Subsequently also in the gradation list dated 5.1.1978, it was reflected as such. Though the plaintiffs representation was accepted and his actual date of birth was entered in the service roll, but in the gradation list prior to 30.9.1994, his date of birth was mentioned as 11.10.1942 for which, the plaintiff again made a representation before the defendant No.3 to correct his date of birth, but the same was turned down on 31.5.1996 in which defendant No.3 mentioned that since in the D and Q Roll and in his service book, his date of birth has been mentioned das 11.10.1942 mentioning of another date of birth in the gradation list is of no consequence. Thereafter, the plaintiff represented before the defendant No.2, but no communication was made in this regard to him for which he filed the suit for such declaration as stated above. Thereafter, the plaintiff represented before the defendant No.2, but no communication was made in this regard to him for which he filed the suit for such declaration as stated above. On receiving the summons, the defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, inter alia, stating that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and also the suit is barred by imitation, while denying all other entire plaint allegations. It was further averred that at the time the plaintiff entered into service as Job Contract Amin under the defendant No.3, he declared his date of birth as 11.10.1942 and, as such, the said date of birth was entered in his service book. After his regularization on 15.4.1972, since the plaintiff himself has signed the D and Q Roll now he is estopped from saying that his date of birth is 21.8.1944 at the fag end of his service. The same is also not permissible in view of the circular of the G.A. Department No.2132 dated 31.1.1995 wherein it has been mentioned that an employee cannot agitate with regard to change of date of birth after five years from the day entered into his service, as such, the plaintiff has no case. So far as the publication of the date of birth in the gradation list is concerned, according to the defendants, the same is a clerical error and it cannot estop the defendants from making necessary correction of such date of birth. 5.On consideration of the rival pleadings, learned Trial Court framed three issues, which are as follows : (i)Is there any cause of action to file the suit ? (ii)Whether the date of birth of the plaintiff is 11.10.1942 or 21.8.1944 ? (iii)To what of the relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to ? 6.In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. and 14 documents were exhibited from his side. On the other hand, the defendants neither examined any witness on or adduced any documentary evidence to substantiate their case. 7.The learned Trial Court recorded the finding that the plaintiff has successfully substantiated the case made out in the plaint by the documents adduced and came to the conclusion that the date of birth of the plaintiff was 21.8.1944 and directed the defendants to accept the same and decreed the suit on contest against the defendants. 7.The learned Trial Court recorded the finding that the plaintiff has successfully substantiated the case made out in the plaint by the documents adduced and came to the conclusion that the date of birth of the plaintiff was 21.8.1944 and directed the defendants to accept the same and decreed the suit on contest against the defendants. 8.Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred appeal, being R.F.A. No.30/2003/10/2003-GDC before the learned District Judge, Berhampur, which was heard by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Berhampur. It was, inter alia, contended before the lower appellate Court by the appellants that in view of the admission of the plaintiff in the D and Q Roll at the time of his engagement as Job Contract Amin, that his date of birth is 11.10.1942, which was marked as Ext.A as an additional evidence before the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff-respondent cannot question the entry of such date of birth in his service book which was made on the basis of the said D and Q Roll at the time of regularization of his service. Therefore, subsequent reflection of his date of birth in the gradation list exhibited by the plaintiff as 21.8.1944 is of no assistance to him. Furthermore, the circular of the G.A. Department being clear, the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and directing correction of the date of birth, when admittedly, the representation was filed at the fag end of the service and after receipt of notice of superannuation. 9.In reply, the respondent-plaintiff submitted before the learned Court below that no declaration to the effect that his date of birth was 11.10.1942 when he performed his duty of a Job Contract Amin as made and Ext.A., which has been admitted as an additional evidence with objection, clearly shows that it is a manipulated document as the column prescribed for the date of birth seems to be interpolated and the respondent-plaintiff has never made such declaration. Further more, in those days of abundance of service as there was no restriction for entering into temporary Government Services which was purely seasonal in nature like that in which the respondent-plaintiff entered into, it cannot be also presumed that the respondent-plaintiff was a major by the time of his entry into service of Job Contract Amin and, as such, his date of birth as 21.8.1944 which was entered in his service book initially at the time of regularization could not have been changed, since the respondent-plaintiff has filed the School Leaving Certificate showing that he was born on 21.8.1944 and there is no cogent reason for rejecting the same. As the defendants have not shown anything as to why the said date of birth was not acceptable, the contention of the appellants that the same was a clerical mistake cannot be accepted. The learned Courts below found from Exhibits - 3A, 4A, 5A and 6A, which are gradation lists published, that the date of birth of the respondent-plaintiff was mentioned as 21.8.1944 being accepted by the appellants-defendants, which amounts to acquiesces on the part of the defendants. The learned lower Appellate Court also found that no declaration was given by the respondent-plaintiff at the time of regularization or entry into service that his date of birth was 11.10.1942. He, therefore, rejected the D & Q Roll filed by the appellants as additional evidence on the ground that it is not acceptable since from the beginning of his entry into service, the respondent-plaintiff has filed School Leaving Certificate showing the date of birth to be 21.8.1944 and there is no evidence to show that the School Leaving Certificate is not genuine. The learned lower appellate Court has also dealt with the G.A. Department Circular on which much reliance was placed and came to the conclusion that the same cannot be relied upon as it has no application to the present case since prior to its publication, the respondent - plaintiff was agitating the matter before the authorities and his date of birth having been reflected as 21.8.1944 in the gradation list, the respondent-plaintiff has genuine grounds to believe that his representation has been accepted. He has also dealt with the ground of limitation and negatived the same. He has also dealt with the ground of limitation and negatived the same. Further, it has been held by the lower appellate Court that the respondent-plaintiff has proved by preponderance of probability that he was born on 21.8.1944 and he had represented the same from the very beginning to the defendants inasmuch as there is ample materials like the gradation list published by the defendants to show that they have accepted the same till 1990. Thus holding, he confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Trial Court. 10.Now coming to the substantial questions of law framed in the present Second Appeal, this Court finds that Ext.A which was introduced into evidence as an additional evidence before the learned lower Appellate Court is the D & Q Roll, in which, no doubt, the respondent - plaintiff has put his signature, but considering the said document, which was prepared, when the respondent - plaintiff was working as a Job Contract Amin, which job was seasonal in nature, it cannot be said that as the date of birth entered in such Roll was at the behest of the respondent-plaintiff or on the basis of any document. Hence, the same cannot estop the respondent-plaintiff claiming for a declaration that his date of birth is 21.8.1944. 11.With regard to the first substantial question of law framed, it would be seen that in the case of Union of India v. Harnam Singh, AIR 1993 SC 1367 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a case where the respondent therein joined in the Government service in the Ministry of Finance (Defence) in Class-IV post as a Peon on 22.2.1956. At the time of entering into Government service. The Service Book was prepared and his date of birth was recorded as 20.5.1934 and since he failed in the matriculation examination, against the column of educational qualification ‘Matric Failed’ was recorded. It appeared from the said case that the respondent later on again appeared in the matriculation examination of the Punjab University under Roll No.2 21653 and passed the said examination in May, 1956. After passing matriculation examination, the respondent was appointed as L.D.C. in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 9.5.1957. In the Service Book of the respondent, an entry was accordingly made showing his educational qualification as Matric. After passing matriculation examination, the respondent was appointed as L.D.C. in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 9.5.1957. In the Service Book of the respondent, an entry was accordingly made showing his educational qualification as Matric. This entry was made underneath the earlier entry ‘matric failed’ and the changed entry was signed by the S.O. of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 7.9.1957. Though the date of birth of the respondent as recorded in the matriculation certificate is 7.4.1938, but while amending the entry about his educational qualification, the entry relating to his date of birth was not altered to correspond to the date given in the matriculation certificate and it continued to be recorded as 20.5.1934. On being notified about his date of superannuation as 31.5.1992, the respondent realized that he was being retired on the basis of his date of birth as originally recorded in the service record as 20.5.1934 ignoring the date of birth as reflected in the matriculation certificate. He made a representation in September, 1991 for alternation of his date of birth, but the same was rejected on 4.12.1991. He submitted another representation 31.1.1992 making a request to consider his case for correction of his date of birth afresh on the basis of the date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate. Again the request of the respondent was turned down on 29.1.1992. The respondent yet made another representation on 26.3.1992 wherein he asserted that he had submitted the matriculation certificate on 4.9.1957, when the entry about his educational qualification was altered and that thereafter since he did not hear anything to the contrary, he presumed that the appellant had also corrected his date of birth in the service book. In the representation, he also drew the attention of the Department to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of one Darshan Singh, wherein the Department was directed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal to correct the date of birth of Darshan Singh on the basis of his date of birth given in the matriculation certificate and it was submitted that his date of birth should also be corrected on the basis of the matriculation certificate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found a distinction between the case of Darshan Singh before the Central Administrative Tribunal where the respondent challenged the order of rejection of his representation on 29.5.1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was contested by the Union of India, who was the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the ground that under F.R. 56 (Note-5) and General Financial Rules, 1979, the Original Application was barred and did not merit any consideration. The Tribunal however, did not agree with the appellant and allowed the application filed by the respondent directing the appellant to correct his date of birth in the service record as per the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate. 12.The Hon’ble Supreme Court appreciating the facts and taking into consideration F.R. 56 governing correction of the date of birth in the service record came to the conclusion that the approach of the Tribunal does not commend to the Court as it tends to create an invidious discrimination, unsustainable in law by creating two artificial classes of the Government servants between those who have joined in the service before and after 1979. They also took note of the fact that F.R. 56 (Note-5) 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. 13.In view of the interpretation made in the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and set aside the same. 13.In view of the interpretation made in the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and set aside the same. 14.In the case of Union of India v. C. Ramaswamy and others, (1997) 4 SCC 647 , again the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the question of change of date of birth in the service book, referring to the provisions of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, discussing the facts of the case that after rejection of the representation of the respondent in the said case by the Central Government, the respondent filed a Civil Suit, which was decreed declaring his date of birth and further declaring that he was entitled to alternation of entry regarding his date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate finding that neither the State Government nor the Central Government were the parties in the civil suit upheld the contentions that on the basis of the decree, representation made by the respondent therein was not entertainable in view of interpretation of Rule 16-A of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal filed by the respondent therein in which his claim was allowed by the Tribunal. 15.In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, AIR 2005 SC 4192 , relying upon the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that a public servant cannot claim change of date of birth beyond the period prescribed under the Rules. A similar view was expressed in the case of State of Haryana v. Satish Kumar Mittal and another, AIR 2010 SC 3312 upon considering the consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions and applying the ratio to the facts of the present case that there are distinct features in the present case which was absent in the cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions. 16.In the present case, the plaintiff-respondent was initially appointed on 27.12.1961 as a Job Contract Amin, which was a seasonal engagement. No materials were produced by the appellants to show that the date of birth recorded in the D and Q Rolls maintained for Job Contract Amins had any basis as has been discussed earlier in the judgment. 16.In the present case, the plaintiff-respondent was initially appointed on 27.12.1961 as a Job Contract Amin, which was a seasonal engagement. No materials were produced by the appellants to show that the date of birth recorded in the D and Q Rolls maintained for Job Contract Amins had any basis as has been discussed earlier in the judgment. He was regularized in service and at the time of regularization, he produced the School Leaving Certificate in compliance to the office order dated 19.4.1972, wherein his date of birth was shown as 21.8.1944. Without taking note of the same, the date of birth was entered as 21.10.1942 relying on the entry made in the D and Q Roll. However, when the gradation list was published by the defendant on 2 on 15.1.1973, his date of birth was recorded as per the School Leaving Certificate as 21.8.1944. In the subsequent gradation list published in 1978, the same date was maintained. Accepting the representation of the respondent-plaintiff, his actual date of birth was entered into the Service Roll, but his date of birth in the gradation list prior to 30.9.1994 was mentioned as 11.10.1942 for which he had made another representation for correction of his date of birth, but the same was turned down in the year, 1996. 17.Stand of the appellants was that since the date of birth of the respondent-plaintiff was recorded as 11.10.1942 in the D and Q Roll and in the Service Book, mentioning of another date of birth in the gradation list, is of no consequence. As the subsequent representation of the respondent-plaintiff was kept pending, he was compelled to file a civil suit, where the appellants were parties. The appellants-State did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary during trial of the suit and only exhibited D and Q Roll as additional evidence before the learned lower appellate Court. There was interpolation in the D and Q Roll with regard to his date of birth, which is a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below. It is also a finding of fact of the Courts below that the date of birth was not initially recorded as 21.8.1944, when he entered into Government service i.e. when he was regularized even though he filed his School Leaving Certificate. It is also a finding of fact of the Courts below that the date of birth was not initially recorded as 21.8.1944, when he entered into Government service i.e. when he was regularized even though he filed his School Leaving Certificate. The lower appellate Court, therefore, has rightly rejected the D and Q Roll filed by the appellants as additional evidence on the ground that it is not acceptable since from the beginning of his entry into the service, the respondent-plaintiff has filed the School Leaving Certificate showing his date of birth as 21.8.1944. The lower appellate Court also rejected the case of the appellants rightly that the G.A. Department Circular, on which the appellants placed reliance have no application to the present case since prior to its publication, the respondent-plaintiff was agitating the matter before the authorities and his date of birth having been reflected in the gradation list as 21.8.1944, the respondent-plaintiff had the genuine grounds to believe that his representation was accepted. Even on preponderance of probability appreciating the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff was born on 21.8.1944 and he had made representations from the very beginning to the defendant-appellants. 18.On the above analysis, I, therefore, find that the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are based on different sets of facts distinctly different from the facts involved in the present case and further it is well settled principles of law that the ratio of a decision on interpretation of the provision of any Statute/Act or Rules will be binding in a case where a question arises with regard to interpretation of the same Statute/Act or Rules and the said Statute/Act or Rules are involved in the present case, the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be made applicable to the case at hand and it cannot be concluded that the claim of the respondent-plaintiff was not entertainable as it was beyond the period prescribed. 19.In the result, I find no merit in the Second Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective cost of the appeal. Appeal dismissed.