JUDGMENT Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. The appellant/petitioner herein joined the service of the National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as NICL) in the year 1980. The date of birth of the appellant/petitioner as per Higher Secondary Certificate is 03/01/1954. The aforesaid date of birth as mentioned in the Higher Secondary Certificate was recorded in the service book of the appellant/petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid recorded date of birth, appellant/petitioner was superannuated from service w.e.f. 31/01/2014 while he was working in the post of Deputy General Manager of NICL. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that while the said appellant/petitioner was posted in Guwahati in November, 2011, his mother Smt. Arati Rani Sarkar discovered her old Passport from old abandoned family documents of the deceased father of the appellant/petitioner. From the said Passport, appellant/petitioner found that the same was issued by the Passport Officer in the month of 19th February, 1954 and in the said Passport, the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner was specifically mentioned as 4th June, 1955. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that his mother did not use the aforesaid Passport after 1958 and the same was unused and ultimately lost amongst the old family documents. The appellant/petitioner was an infant in the year 1958. According to the appellant/petitioner, it was not possible for him to know about the existence of the said passport. However, after discovery of the aforesaid Passport in November, 2011, a representation was submitted by the said appellant/petitioner before the respondent authority for correction of his date of birth in the service records on the basis of the recorded date of birth of the said appellant/petitioner in the passport of his mother. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned advocate representing the appellant/petitioner submitted that the said appellant/petitioner was admitted in School in and around 1960, when his date of birth was erroneously recorded as 3rd January, 1954, ignoring the actual date of birth earlier recorded in an important government document namely, the passport of his mother. Mr. Bhattacharya further submitted that the recording of the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner in the school register was wrong and the date of birth recorded earlier in an important government document like Passport was correct. Mr. Bhattacharya further submitted that the recording of the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner in the school register was wrong and the date of birth recorded earlier in an important government document like Passport was correct. The respondent authorities, however, refused to alter the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner in his service record, upon considering his representation and rejected the said representation without assigning any valid reason. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel of the appellant/petitioner submitted that the passport issued to the mother of the appellant/petitioner by the competent authority of the Government of India in the year 1954 is an unimpeachable and contemporaneous document and the respondent authorities should not have ignored the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner mentioned in the said Passport of his mother in the year 1957, specially when the said Passport is the oldest document issued by the competent authority of the Government of India. Mr. Bhattacharya, in support of his arguments relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh Vs. Rajni Kant, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 209 Para-21 and also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Sunil Kumar Santra Vs. Secretary, Finance (Revenue) Govt. of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2014 (1) CHN (CAL) 146. Mr. Dipak Kumar Ghosh, learned advocate of the Insurance Company however, submitted that after a lapse of 32 years, appellant/petitioner herein submitted his representation for correction of the date of birth on the basis of the recording in the Passport of his mother which was valid till 8th February, 1959. Mr. Ghosh submitted that the prayer of the appellant/petitioner for correction of date of birth cannot be entertained at such a belated stage. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that the prayer of the appellant/petitioner cannot be also considered at such a belated stage since the same will encourage other employees to seek age correction at a belated stage which has been deprecated repeatedly by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Mr. Ghosh also submitted that the Higher Secondary Certificate of the appellant/petitioner is the primary proof of age and the passport of the mother of the said appellant/petitioner cannot be treated as primary proof of age. Mr. Mr. Ghosh also submitted that the Higher Secondary Certificate of the appellant/petitioner is the primary proof of age and the passport of the mother of the said appellant/petitioner cannot be treated as primary proof of age. Mr. Ghosh submitted that the correction of the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner in the service record should not be made at this belated stage since the said date of birth of the appellant/petitioner would affect the promotional prospect of the other employees. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel of the appellant/petitioner relied on Clause-4 of the GIC guidelines for acceptance of the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the Passport. The said Clause-4 is set out hereunder:- “When an employee has in his possession or power two or more documents showing different dates of birth, or has reason to believe that there exists or can be obtained two or more documents showing different dates or birth, he should inform the competent authority and produce all such documents and state which he believes shows his true date of birth and the reasons for such belief.” Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that Clause 4 of the GIC guidelines is an independent provision and is not controlled by any other clause, specially Clause 3. Mr. Bhattacharya further submitted that Clause 4 does not speak of any primary proof of age. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, Clause 4 deals with correction of age on discovery of another document showing different date of birth. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate representing respondent-Insurance Company submitted that interpretation given to Clause 4 by the learned Senior Counsel of the appellant/petitioner cannot be accepted. According to Mr. Ghosh, such interpretation is against the spirit, object and purpose of the clause. Mr. Ghosh specifically submitted that the appellant/petitioner accepted the date of birth recorded in the Higher Secondary Certificate for a considerable long period and at the fag end of the service career said appellant/petitioner cannot seek for alteration of the same. Mr. Ghosh submitted that no unimpeachable document was produced by the appellant/petitioner to substantiate that his correct date of birth is 04/06/1955. According to Mr. Ghosh, passport of the mother of the appellant/petitioner could not be construed as irrefutable proof of age. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that the correction of the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner at this stage would affect the interests of several other employees. Mr. According to Mr. Ghosh, passport of the mother of the appellant/petitioner could not be construed as irrefutable proof of age. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that the correction of the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner at this stage would affect the interests of several other employees. Mr. Ghosh urged before this court that the correction of the date of birth after a long period is not at all permissible. Mr. Ghosh relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his arguments: (i) Union of India -vs.- Ram Sua Sharma [JT. 1996 (3) SC 72 Para 2] (ii) State of M.P. –vs.- Premlal Shrivas [ (2011) 9 SCC 664 ] (iii) State of U.P. & Ors. –vs.- Smt. Gulaichi [ (2003) 6 SCC 483 ] (iv) U.P. Madhyamik Siksha Parishad –vs.- Raj Kumar Agnihoti [ (2005) 11 SCC 465 ] (v) State of Punjab & Ors. –vs.- S.C. Chadha [ (2004) 3 SCC 394 ] (vi) Collector of Madras –vs.- K. Rajamanickam [ (1995) 2 SCC 98 ] The passport was issued to the mother of the petitioner on 09/02/1954 by the competent authority of the Government of India. All the relevant pieces of information in respect of a citizen of India are recorded in the passport after thorough and proper enquiry, and verification of the relevant records by the competent authority. No information in respect of a citizen can be recorded in the passport in the absence of proper and valid scrutiny of the relevant documents. Therefore, any information in respect of a citizen recorded in the passport has a special significance. In the present case, passport was issued to the mother of the petitioner in the year 1954 and subsequently, on 19th October, 1957 name as well as date of birth of the appellant/petitioner was recorded in the said passport by the passport officer. The original passport was produced before this court for inspection and xerox copy of the said passport has also been annexed with the Written Notes of argument filed on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, wherefrom we find that the passport officer on 19th October, 1957 recorded the name and date of birth of the appellant/petitioner in the passport of his mother. The original passport was produced before this court for inspection and xerox copy of the said passport has also been annexed with the Written Notes of argument filed on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, wherefrom we find that the passport officer on 19th October, 1957 recorded the name and date of birth of the appellant/petitioner in the passport of his mother. The passport officer could not insert the name as well as the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner in the passport of his mother on 19th October, 1957, without proper verification of relevant records. Passport is a very important document issued by the responsible competent officer of the Govt. of India to a citizen seeking to visit abroad. In any event, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate of the respondent did not dispute the genuineness of the passport of the mother of the appellant/petitioner or even the recording of the name and date of birth of the said appellant/petitioner in the said passport of his mother by the passport officer on 19th October, 1957. The respondent authorities refused to correct the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner only on the ground of delay although we do not find any delay on the part of the petitioner for taking necessary steps for correcting the recorded date of birth by submitting a proper representation. From the records, we find that the mother of the petitioner discovered her unused passport in November, 2011 when the appellant/petitioner was posted in Guwahati. The appellant/petitioner however, applied for correction of his date of birth in the service records on 04/01/2011 explaining the circumstances under which the said passport of his mother was discovered. The respondent authorities however, did not correct the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner upon considering the specific entry regarding the date of birth of the said appellant/petitioner in the passport of his mother. The appellant/petitioner got the possession of the passport of his mother only after discovery of the same by his mother in November, 2011. The said passport was used by the mother of the appellant/petitioner while she visited the then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to meet her paternal relations. The appellant/petitioner got the possession of the passport of his mother only after discovery of the same by his mother in November, 2011. The said passport was used by the mother of the appellant/petitioner while she visited the then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to meet her paternal relations. During first two visits between 20/04/1954 and 12/02/1955 to the then East Pakistan nothing was recorded in the said passport of the mother about her child since she had no issue till then and she gave birth to the first child namely, the appellant/petitioner herein on 4th June, 1955, which was recorded during the third visit of the mother to the then East Pakistan in December, 1957, when the appellant/petitioner was accompanied by his mother. The name and date of birth of the appellant/petitioner was recorded in the passport of his mother in the year 1957 and the said petitioner was admitted in the School in the year 1960. Therefore, the recording of the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner in the passport of his mother was not only made prior to the recording of the date of birth in the School Register but also such recording was made by the competent officer of the Govt. of India under thorough scrutiny and proper verification of the relevant records. The subsequent recording of the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner in the School Register cannot be based on such strict scrutiny as was done by the Government Officer for making any entry in the passport. In any event, the earlier record relating to the date of birth cannot be ignored specially when such date of birth was recorded in the passport of the mother of the appellant/petitioner while the appellant/petitioner was only about two years old. In Clause 4 of the GIC guidelines, it has been mentioned that when an employee has in his possession or power, two or more documents showing different dates of birth, he should inform the competent authority and produce all such documents and state which he believes as his true date of birth and the reasons for such belief. In compliance with the aforesaid guidelines, the petitioner herein immediately after discovery of the passport of his mother in November, 2011 submitted an application for correction of his date of birth in the service book on 04/01/2012 explaining the circumstances under which the said passport was discovered. In compliance with the aforesaid guidelines, the petitioner herein immediately after discovery of the passport of his mother in November, 2011 submitted an application for correction of his date of birth in the service book on 04/01/2012 explaining the circumstances under which the said passport was discovered. Therefore, the respondent authorities should have corrected the date of birth of the petitioner upon accepting the explanation of the appellant/petitioner regarding discovery of the passport at a belated stage. The said passport was valid till 8th February, 1959 and was not used by the mother of the appellant/petitioner after her last visit in East Pakistan between December, 1957 and February, 1958. The appellant/petitioner herein could not have any knowledge about the passport of his mother which was used during his childhood. The respondent authorities, in our opinion, illegally refused to allow the prayer of the appellant/petitioner for correction of the date of birth upon accepting the date of birth of the said appellant/petitioner recorded in the passport of his mother in the year 1957, when the said appellant/petitioner was about two years old. The date of birth of the appellant/petitioner recorded in the passport of his mother in the year 1957 should have been treated as the unimpeachable evidence available before the respondent authorities in view of discovery and submission of the unimpeachable contemporaneous document like the original passport issued by the competent authority of the Govt. of India. In the present case, respondent authorities failed to exercise its power under Clause 4 of the GIC guidelines in an appropriate manner. While exercising power under Clause 4 of the said guidelines, the competent authority is only required to take into consideration whether the documents as contemplated under the said Clause 4 of the said guidelines and produced by an applicant are genuine or not and whether the applicant concerned would derive any undue advantage or benefit due to subsequent declaration of the date of birth which the said applicant seeks to mention in the service records altering the previous entry. As mentioned hereinbefore, the appellant/petitioner herein applied for correction of his date of birth within a period of less than two years after discovery and possession of the unimpeachable contemporaneous document namely, the passport of his mother which was discovered by his mother from the old and abandoned family papers kept at his ancestral home. As mentioned hereinbefore, the appellant/petitioner herein applied for correction of his date of birth within a period of less than two years after discovery and possession of the unimpeachable contemporaneous document namely, the passport of his mother which was discovered by his mother from the old and abandoned family papers kept at his ancestral home. So, there is no delay on the part of the appellant/petitioner in seeking correction of his date of birth in terms of Clause 4 of the GIC guidelines. It has been specifically argued on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company that the appellant/petitioner herein accepted the date of birth recorded in the Higher Secondary Certificate for a period of almost 32 years. The appellant/petitioner had no occasion to seek correction of his date of birth before coming to know the recording of his actual date of birth in an unimpeachable contemporaneous document like the passport of his mother which was discovered by his mother from the abandoned old family papers kept at the ancestral home only in the month of 2011. The application for correction of date of birth was submitted by the appellant/petitioner on the basis of the said document within a period of less than two months time on 04/01/2012. In the case of Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. Rajni Kant & Anr., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 209 , Supreme Court held :- “For determining the age of a person, the best evidence is of his/her parents, if it is supported by unimpeachable documents. In case the date of birth depicted in the school register/certificate stands belied by the unimpeachable evidence of reliable persons and contemporaneous documents like the date of birth register of the Municipal Corporation, government hospital/nursing home, etc., the entry in the school register is to be discarded.” In view of the law settled by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, we have no hesitation to discard the date of birth mentioned in the Higher Secondary Certificate of the appellant/petitioner since the same stands belied by the unimpeachable documentary evidence available from the unimpeachable contemporaneous document like the passport of his mother issued by the competent authority of the Govt. of India long before the recording of the said date of birth in the School Register. of India long before the recording of the said date of birth in the School Register. The other objection raised on behalf of the respondent authorities that the correction of the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner at this stage will encourage the other employees to seek age correction at a belated stage cannot be considered as a valid objection at all. The appellant/petitioner herein, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case prayed for correction of the date of birth at belated stage in view of sudden discovery of unimpeachable documentary evidence from an unimpeachable contemporaneous document like the passport of his mother issued by the competent officer of the Govt. of India. The facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant/petitioner are quite different from the ordinary run of cases and should be treated as a rare case. The decisions cited by the learned counsel of the respondent authorities cannot be of any assistance in deciding the issues raised before us in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has committed serious error by holding that correction of age of the appellant/petitioner would be inequitable at this stage. The learned Single Judge misconstrued the scope and ambit of Clause 2 and Clause 4 of the GIC guidelines by not appreciating that the aforesaid two Clauses are independent and operate in different fields. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any valid reason for rejecting the prayer for correction of the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner in his service records upon accepting the date of birth recorded in the passport of the mother of the said appellant/petitioner. We, therefore, direct the respondent authorities to accept the correct date of birth of the appellant/petitioner as 04/06/1955 which has been specifically mentioned in the passport of his mother instead of 03/01/1954 and allow the appellant/petitioner to resume his duties forthwith after correcting the service records of the said appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner however, will not be entitled to any backwages but the said appellant/petitioner should be notionally treated in service although without any break and will be entitled to all admissible service benefits and retiral benefits in future. The appellant/petitioner however, will not be entitled to any backwages but the said appellant/petitioner should be notionally treated in service although without any break and will be entitled to all admissible service benefits and retiral benefits in future. With the aforesaid observations and directions, we set aside the impugned judgment and order under appeal and allow both the application as well as the appeal without awarding any costs. I agree.