JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Kh. Ajit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms. Monomala Devi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction from this court for correcting his date of birth as 01-02-1965 instead of 01-03-1955 and 01-03-1967 as per the letter dated 04-04-2012 of the then Chief Engineer, IFCD. The present case is one of those cases where the Court finds it difficult to decide the issue involved herein for want of materials after the same being destroyed by fire. 2.1. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as D/M - II on Work-Charged basis vide order dated 28-06-1983 issued by the then Chief Engineer, IFCD, Government of Manipur and accordingly, his report for duty w.e.f. 08-08-1983 was allowed vide office order dated 20-08-1983 along with original certificates, as required in the order dated 28-06-1983 itself, including Prabodh Examination Certificate claiming his date of birth as 01-02-1965 and was posted at Thoubal Canal Division No. I, IFCD, Manipur. 2.2. On 18-09-1990 a fire broke out in the office, as a result of which the Service Book of the petitioner along with that of some other staff were destroyed and accordingly, the Service Book of the petitioner was reconstructed (Annexure - A/5) wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 01-03-1967 and by cutting it, another date of birth as 01-03-1955 is written above it. 2.3. After serving for about 16 (sixteen) years as Work-Charged, the petitioner was regularized to the post of D/M - II pursuant to the approval granted by the State Government vide letter dated 25-06-1999 and after the petitioner's service being regularized, the then Chief Engineer, IFCD recommended for regularization/conversion to the post of D/M - I to the Secretary, IFCD, Government of Manipur who in turn informed the Chief Engineer, IFCD that the re-designation of the petitioner as D/M - I had been approved by the Hon'ble Minister and that the necessary action be taken in the light of the existing rules and regulations after the banned imposed being lifted. 2.4. In the year 2001, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding on the allegation that the petitioner joined the service on the basis of a fake certificate. 2.4. In the year 2001, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding on the allegation that the petitioner joined the service on the basis of a fake certificate. By order dated 07-04-2003 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P. (C) No. 1290 of 2001, the order suspending the petitioner was set aside and accordingly, an order dated 07-08-2003 was issued by the Government of Manipur revoking the said suspension order. On the basis of a case being registered under FIR Case No. 1 (2) 2005 - VPS, U/S 420/468/471 IPC on the similar allegation, the petitioner was arrested on 25-08-2006 but released vide order dated 30-08-2006 passed by the Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal on the ground of charge-sheet not being submitted. However, the petitioner was immediately suspended from service vide order dated 31-08-2006 allegedly in connection with the investigation under the case referred to above. The said suspension order dated 31-08-2006 was challenged by the petitioner by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 741 of 2007 wherein the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court was pleased to set aside and quash the said suspension order dated 31-08-2006 with the direction that the petitioner should be reinstated into service and his arrear of pay and allowances should be paid within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order. In compliance of the said order dated 09-02-2009 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, an order dated 26-02-2009 was issued revoking the suspension of the petitioner. 2.5. By its judgment and order dated 04-05-2010, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal held inter-alia that it did not find any part of the statement given by the witnesses that the accused had produced or used the alleged fake original certificate of HSLC Examination, 1972 bearing Roll No. 4623 passed from the Johnstone Higher Secondary School, Imphal which is verified by the School authority on 11-09-1983 (Ex - 3) at the time of his initial appointment in between vide order No. 107(B), dated 28-06-1983 and date of joining for duty w.e.f. 08-08-1983 (FN) i.e., Ex - 4 and Service Book Part - I i.e., Ex - 8. It further held that from the overall examination and perusal of the available materials on record, the allegations made against the accused were not found in any of the materials placed on record including the statements given by the witnesses and the complainant of the case; that as such the charged leveled against the accused were totally baseless and that since no prima facie case was made out against the accused U/S 420/468/471 IPC, the charges could not be framed against the accused in the absence of evidence and accordingly, the accused was discharged. It appears that no appeal/revision has been preferred against the said judgment and order which has therefore attained finality. 2.6. Since the petitioner had been discharged from the said case under FIR No. 1(2)2005 - VPS, U/S 420/468/471 IPC, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 05-08-2011 to the then Chief Engineer, IFCD, Government of Manipur requesting him to correct his date of birth as 01-02-1965 instead of 01-03-1955 and it appears that the Superintending Engineer, IFCD, Manipur (Nodal Office, MGEL) addressed a letter dated 16-02-2012 to the Manipur Hindu Prachar Shabha for verification and in reply thereto, the Secretary i/c, Manipur Hindu Prachar Shabha, Akampat, Imphal vide its letter dated 18-02-2012 informed the Superintending Engineer, IFCD that the petitioner's Roll No. 476, Hindu Prabodh Examination, 1977 had been verified in its office records and found that the petitioner had passed the said examination in 2nd Division and that his date of birth as 01-02-1965 was found to be genuine and correct. After the receipt of this verification report, the then Chief Engineer, IFCD addressed a letter dated 04-04-2012 to the Principal Secretary (IFCD) for grant of approval for correction of date of birth in respect of the petitioner as 01-02-1965 instead of 01-03-1955 which stood as his date of birth in the Service Book of record as on that date. Since the Government of Manipur had not taken any decision, the petitioner was compelled to submit 2 (two) reminders dated 07-11-2012 and 14-03-2013. Even then the State Government failed to consider the petitioner's representations which are still pending for disposal. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Since the Government of Manipur had not taken any decision, the petitioner was compelled to submit 2 (two) reminders dated 07-11-2012 and 14-03-2013. Even then the State Government failed to consider the petitioner's representations which are still pending for disposal. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, at the time of joining his service in the year 1983, had submitted the original certificates including the certificate of having passed the Prabodh Examination claiming his date of birth as 01-02-1965 and that after verifying the same from the Manipur Hindi Prachar Shabha, Manipur, on 04-04-2012 the then Chief Engineer had written to the Principal Secretary (IFCD) for grant of approval for change of petitioner's date of birth and in view thereof, the Government of Manipur in the interest of justice ought to permit the correction of the petitioner's date of birth as 01-02-1965. On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel appearing for the State respondent that the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book was 01-03-1955 and since the application for correction of date of birth was not preferred within 5 (five) years of entry into the service by filing a proper representation, the claim for correction of date of birth from 01-03-1955 to 01-02-1965 i.e., by reducing the age of superannuation by 12 (twelve) years was not tenable in the eye of law. 4. It is not in dispute that on 18-09-1990 a fire broke out in the officer destroying the service book of the petitioner along with that of other staff and therefore, the reconstruction of petitioner's service book was the only option. The question is as to how best could it be done in the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, at the time of joining his service in the year 1983, had submitted the original certificates including the certificate of having passed the Prabodh Examination claiming his date of birth as 01-02-1965. It might be true and is quite natural because without date of birth, the respondents would not have allowed the petitioner to join his service but since the document having been destroyed by fire, there was no basis on the part of the respondents to verify the correctness thereof. It might be true and is quite natural because without date of birth, the respondents would not have allowed the petitioner to join his service but since the document having been destroyed by fire, there was no basis on the part of the respondents to verify the correctness thereof. Moreover, the duplicate copy of the Prabodh Examination Certificate produced by the petitioner did not help at all, as it did not contain the exact date of birth. The contention of the State Government is also not sustainable in law and can not be upheld. It has been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book was 01-03-1955 which is not based on any authentic document. It has further been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that since the application for correction of date of birth was not preferred within 5 (five) years of entry into the service by filing a proper representation, the claim for correction of date of birth from 01-03-1955 to 01-02-1965 i.e., by reducing the age of superannuation by 12 (twelve) years was not tenable in the eye of law. To substantiate her submission, the learned Government Advocate has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Vs. Megh Raj Garg & anr, reported in : (2010) 6 SCC 482 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia has held that on analysis of the rule makes it very clear that the declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into government service is conclusive and binding on the government servant and that the correction of date of birth recorded in the service book after twelve years of joining the service was clearly misconceived. There can be no dispute about this principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, there is no application being filed by the petitioner, on his own, for correction of his date of birth and as has been stated herein above, the issue regarding correction of petitioner's date of birth arose while reconstructing his service book which had been destroyed by fire. In the present case, there is no application being filed by the petitioner, on his own, for correction of his date of birth and as has been stated herein above, the issue regarding correction of petitioner's date of birth arose while reconstructing his service book which had been destroyed by fire. There is no averment anywhere in the pleading that the said incident of fire can be attributed to the petitioner. The determination of petitioner's date of birth became necessary, as he would be entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation. 5. There is no material on record on the basis of which this court can decide the issue involved herein and direct for correction of the petitioner's date of birth as 01-02-1965. The present case is more of a policy rather than of being legal. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and from the materials on record, this court is of the view that the petitioner has got, at the most, prima facie case in his favour for the reason that his contention that the petitioner, at the time of joining his service in the year 1983, had submitted the original certificates including the certificate of having passed the Prabodh Examination claiming his date of birth as 01-02-1965 is substantiated by the verification report. Moreover, on the basis of the said verification report, the then Chief Engineer, IFCD vide letter dated 04-04-2012 sought for approval from the State Government for correction of petitioner's date of birth as 01-02-1965. These documents are vital for purpose of taking a decision by the respondents in respect of the petitioner's case. It appears that the State Government has not taken any decision thereon nor has it considered the petitioner's representation followed by reminders. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in particular, the service career of the petitioner, the State Government ought to take a decision at the earliest possible because the petitioner, in case his date of birth is to be treated as 01-03-1955, is likely to retire on 28-02-2015 as is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the observations made herein above, this court is of the view that the present writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the State Government to take a final decision. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to consider the said proposal dated 04-04-2012 of the then Chief Engineer, IFCD and the petitioner's representation dated 05-08-2011 followed by reminders dated 09-11-2012 and 14-03-2013 after due notice being given to the petitioner of being heard and issue an appropriate and judicious order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I further direct that the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue in service until a final decision is taken by the respondents and pay his pay and allowances accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.