ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 28.10.2013 passed in Na.Ka.No.25 of 2013 in and by which the date of birth of the petitioner was unilaterally ordered to be changed in the Service Register without granting any opportunity to him. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: i) The petitioner was appointed as daily wager Assistant in Veterinary Hospital, Periyakulam on 02.08.1980, that his date of birth was wrongly entered in the school records as 13.04.1956 and that his actual date of birth was 10.07.1959. His date of birth has been registered on the same day of his birth vide Registration No.932 of 1959 in the Periyakulam Municipality. The petitioner joined the school and his parents have given his dater of birth as 13.04.1956. Subsequently, the petitioner joined in the Animal Husbandry Department on 26.05.1990 and the Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry appointed the petitioner as Assistant. ii) The petitioner has submitted that when he came to know that his date of birth has been wrongly entered as 13.04.1956 in the 3rd week of May, 1995, the petitioner immediately applied for his date of birth extract in Periyakulam Municipality and requested for correction in the date of birth on 22.05.1995 to his appointing authority. On scrutinizing the records, the then Assistant Director Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Hospital, Periyakulam has corrected his date of birth in the Service Register with due endorsement and also intimated the same to the Accountant General for carrying out the said correction in the GPF No.16200/kely, which has been done accordingly. His higher authority and Appellate Authority, namely the Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Theni has also approved and ratified the said alteration vide order in K.Dis.No.406/B1/99 dated 24.12.1999, which thus attained finality. iii) The petitioner has further submitted that while so, the 1st respondent has written a letter No.4/2013 dated 09.02.2013 to verify his service record by sending his service book to the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E) Tamil Nadu, who in turn sent the preliminary verification report dated 20.03.2013, intimating that the petitioner's qualifying service as on 31.12.2012 is 22 years 7 months. Thereafter, the 1st respondent sent a letter to the 2nd respondent reporting about the correction in the date of birth and also raised a question as to which date has to be taken to fix his superannuation. Later on, the 1st respondent, based on the letter dated 30.08.2013, received from the 2nd respondent, has passed an order dated 28.10.2013 exceeding his authority by setting aside the change of his date of birth and pressurized him to sign in the Service Register for acceptance of his illegal order so as to send the proposal of his retirement as on 13.04.2014. iv) It is the submission of the petitioner that he also sent a representation on 10.01.2014 to the 1st respondent with a copy to the 2nd respondent, objecting to the illegal proceedings and order. But so far, he has not received any response from any one. Since he has got service for more than 3 years, he should not be superannuated prematurely on the basis of the impugned order. It is submitted that under the Tamil Nadu Government Subordinate Service Rules, there is no power of review granted to authorities, when the change of date of birth in the Service Register is made by the competent authority on an application of the employee within 5 years in terms of Rule 49. It is also submitted that application for correction of his date of birth has been made within 5 years and that Rule 49-A alone is applicable to the case of the petitioner and hence, the act of the respondent in passing the impugned order dated 28.10.2013 has to be interfered with. v) According to the petitioner, correction in the date of birth in the official records can be made straightway by the appointing authorities and after such correction, the same will become final in terms of Rule 49-A. Thus, it is pleaded that the impugned order is liable to set aside and that he should be allowed to continue in service based on the corrected date of birth made by the appointing authority and also based on the extract from the Birth and Death Register. 3. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a detailed counter, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has not made any application within a period of 5 years and no such application dated 22.05.1995 is available in the office records and that he had created forged application dated 22.05.1995 and other relevant documents especially the Ref.No.367/95 dated 31.07.1995 of the then 1st respondent. It is stated in the counter that while opening the Service Register, the petitioner has given undertaking certificate as follows: “I do hereby declare that the Date of Birth and the above particulars are correct to the best of my knowledge.” The petitioner without knowledge of the concerned officer created the documents unofficially and moreover, no such reference dated 31.07.1995 is available in the office records and no such person namely, Dr. P.Ramasubramanian, Veterinary Surgeon (In-charge), Periyakularm was working. It has been reiterated by the respondent that in terms of Rule 49A of the Tamil Nadu Basic Subordinate Service Rules, the appointing authority alone is the competent authority in respect of correction in the date of birth of an employee and in the instant case, the Deputy Director is the competent authority in respect of correction of date of birth of the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner seeks correction in the date of birth based on the forged documents and therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not at all sustainable. 4. In reply to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that no documents have been created or forged by the petitioner, since all the documents have been signed, approved and ratified by the officials. He further represented that there was no post of Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry Key Villages at that point of time and that if there are any clerical error or wrong entries, the same can be corrected by the appointing authority. But in this case, since it has been brought to the notice of the appointing authority within a period of 5 years from the date of joining, change in the date of birth has been effected by the officials. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 6. But in this case, since it has been brought to the notice of the appointing authority within a period of 5 years from the date of joining, change in the date of birth has been effected by the officials. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 6. From the affidavit, it is seen that the petitioner joined the service on 02.08.1981 as Assistant and there was a dispute with regard to his date of birth, as the same has been wrongly entered as 13.04.1956 in lieu of 10.07.1959. Even though there is no dispute in respect of the extract in the Birth and Death register, according to the respondent, there was no claim for change of date of birth within a period of 5 years as stipulated in the Tamil Nadu Basic Subordinate Service Rules. This Court feels it appropriate to extract Rule 49 of the said Rules as under: “49. Alteration of date of birth -- (a) If, at the time of appointment, a candidate claims that his date of birth is different from that entered in his S.S.L.C. or Matriculation Register or School records, he shall make an application to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in cases where the appointment is made in consultation with the Commission and in other cases to the appointing authority stating the evidence on which he relies and explaining how the mistake occurred. The application shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration for report after investigation by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector and, on receipt of the report, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or the appointing authority, as the case may be, shall decide whether the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application may be rejected: Provided that in case of a candidate who was born outside the State of Tamil Nadu the investigation through the Commissioner of Revenue Administration shall be dispensed with and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or the appointing authority, as the case may be, shall examine and scrutinize the records that may be produced by the candidate and shall decide whether the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application may be rejected. (b) After a person has entered service, an application to alter the date of his birth as entered in the official records shall be entertained only if such an application is made within five years of such entry into service. Such an application shall be made to the authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the applicant at the time of his application and shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (a). (c) Any application received after five years after entry into service or any application, which is not supported by entries in Secondary School Leaving Certificate, School, College or University records, birth extract from records of local bodies or military discharge certificates, shall be summarily rejected. (d) In considering the question of permitting an alteration on the date of birth as entered in the official records even when such entry is proved to have been due to a bonafide mistake, the Government or the appointing authority shall take into consideration the circumstance whether the applicant would normally be eligible for appointment to the post at the time of entry into service had his age been correctly stated and what would have been its effect on his service and the service conditions of other officers in the service and may permit the alteration subject to such condition as they or it may deem fit to impose: Provided that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission shall be consulted in the case of an applicant who has been initially recruited through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, if it is proposed to accept his request for alteration of date of birth. (e) The Procedure laid down in sub-rule (a) shall be followed in all cases where alteration of date of birth is proposed suo motu by the Head of Office on the basis of medical opinion, in the absence of any other authoritative records. (f) The decision of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the appointing authority or the Government, as the case may be, shall be final. (f) The decision of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the appointing authority or the Government, as the case may be, shall be final. 49.A.(1) Correction of date of birth --After a person has entered service, if it is found that his date of birth entered in his Service Register is different from that entered in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate or Military Discharge Certificate, which may be due to some clerical error or otherwise wrong entries, application for correction of such clerical error or wrong entries, shall be made to the appointing authority. Such corrections in the Service Register shall be made straightway by the appointing authority. If the date of birth in the Service Register was entered on the basis of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, correction of clerical error or wrong entries shall be made only with reference to Secondary School Leaving Certificate and if the date of birth in the Service Register was entered on the basis of the Military Discharge Certificate, correction of clerical error or wrong entries shall be made only with reference to the Military Discharge Certificate. Where the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and the Military discharge certificate contain different dates of birth, the date of birth entered in the secondary School Leaving Certificate shall be accepted. But the date of birth entered in the Military Discharge Certificate shall be accepted in the absence of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. (2) Where the date of birth of a person, whose qualification is less than the minimum general educational qualification, is entered in the Service Register on the basis of the medical certificate or the transfer certificate obtained from the school in which he studied or an affidavit sworn before a Magistrate and if there is any error in the entry so made, the appointing authority may, on application, make necessary correction only with reference to the original record on the basis of which an entry relating to the date of birth is made in the Service Register.” 7. The submission of the respondent is that the petitioner, on having produced his 6th standard school leaving certificate in proof of his age, cannot now contend that his date of birth has been entered wrongly. The submission of the respondent is that the petitioner, on having produced his 6th standard school leaving certificate in proof of his age, cannot now contend that his date of birth has been entered wrongly. Apart from the above, the petitioner has also given an undertaking at the time of joining duty to the effect that he will not raise any issue regarding change of his date of birth. But the said submission of the respondent does not hold good. It is pertinent to mention that when a period of 5 years has been stipulated under the Rules for change of date of birth in the service records, his right cannot be deprived of by merely relying on an undertaking given by the petitioner at the time of joining duty, which would indirectly imply a meaning that the undertaking will override the provisions of Statute. 8. One Dr. M. Vasagan, the then Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, who appeared before this Court, has filed an affidavit to the effect that the date of birth, which was altered in the service records, came to him on the last date of his retirement and he has put his signature and ratification was obtained suppressing the contents in the memo. Since he was on the last day of his retirement, he signed a number of files, including the one, which pertains to the alteration of the date of birth of the petitioner. He has submitted that the mistake had erupted beyond his knowledge and his signature was obtained in the alleged controversial memo of ratification proceeding in K.Dis.406/B1/99 dated 24.12.1999 along with several numerous pending files. 9. The petitioner has submitted that he had forwarded necessary application for correction in the date of birth as early as on 22.05.1995 and at the relevant point of time, one Dr. Ramakrishnan was the Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Theni, who, in his statement dated 03.08.2014, obtained in the presence of his wife, has stated that the signature as found in the documents allegedly produced by the petitioner does not belong to him and he has not signed in it. 10. However, a glance at the impugned order clearly shows that records have been corrected by the said Dr. Ramakrishnan, which has been duly ratified by Dr. Vasagan. 10. However, a glance at the impugned order clearly shows that records have been corrected by the said Dr. Ramakrishnan, which has been duly ratified by Dr. Vasagan. Even though it is vehemently contended that the petitioner has forged and fabricated the records, a reading of the impugned order does not say so. This Court would have certainly come to the rescue of the respondents, if it is proved otherwise, which is admittedly not done in the present case. 11. Therefore, finding force in the contention raised by the petitioner, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.10.2013 is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with continuity of service on receipt of the entire retiral benefits paid to him, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that he is not entitled to any backwages for the period in which he was not in employment on the sole ground of “No Work No Pay”. For the sake of brevity, it is reiterated that if the retiral benefits are not repaid by the petitioner within the stipulated time (supra), the respondent shall grant him further time for remittal of the same and till then, the petitioner is disentitled to salary on the principle of “No Work No Pay”. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.