JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. The petition being Special Civil Application No. 13785 of 2003 is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ('the corporation' for short) against order dated 19.4.2003 by the Controlling Authority in Gratuity Application No. 29 of 2002 as well as against order dated 22.7.2003 passed by Appellate Authority in Gratuity Appeal No. 162 of 2003. 2. The second Special Civil Application No. 27304 of 2007 is filed by the heirs/legal representative of the deceased employee. 3. The said second petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 27304 of 2007 is taken out in connection with the same orders which are challenged by the Corporation in Special Civil Application No. 13785 of 2003, wherein the heirs of the deceased employee have prayed for implementation of order and disbursement of the amount in question. 4. Heard Mr. Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Kamani, learned advocate for Mr. Pathak, learned advocate for the heirs/legal representatives of the concerned employee. 5. The short facts of the case are that according to the Corporation the deceased workman, while in service, got his date of birth changed in the record of the Corporation by submitting certificate that date of birth mentioned in the record of the corporation i.e. 25.11.1936 is incorrect and his correct date of birth is 11.3.1945 and that appropriate change/correction may be made. 5.1 In view of such request change in the record was carried out and on strength of such correction he continued in service beyond his actual and correct age of superannuation. 5.2 However, after the concerned workman attained age of superannuation and when his account was being settled, some doubt arose with regard to the details mentioned by the employee and the documents (certificate etc.) submitted by the employee and that, therefore, inquiry was conducted wherein it was revealed that the certificate which the workman (since deceased) submitted for getting the date of birth changed, was certificate in respect of his brother and on strength of his brother's certificate he got the correction, in respect of his date of birth, made in the corporation's record. 5.3 It is further claimed by the corporation that when the said aspect came to the notice of the corporation, opportunity of hearing was granted to the concerned workman (since deceased) and his brother by the competent officer and the workman's explanation was also called for and upon being satisfied that the concerned workman's date of birth is 25.11.1936 and he had got the said date changed by misleading the corporation and thereby he had wrongfully continued in the service of the corporation, the corporation passed an order dated 20.10.2001, holding that for all practical purposes and for calculating terminal dues, 25.11.1936 will be considered as the date of birth of the concerned workman. 5.4 Accordingly, he was treated as superannuated w.e.f. 30.12.1994 (considering 25.11.1936 as his birth date). According to the corporation, the said order dated 20.10.2001 has attained finality. 5.5 It is also claimed that by virtue of the order dated 20.10.2001, the concerned workman was relieved from service on and from 24.10.2001. 5.6 In that view of the matter, the concerned workman, after he was relieved from service and after his account was settled in light of office order dated 20.10.2001, raised dispute with regard to the quantification of the gratuity. 5.7 According to the corporation, the gratuity will be payable by taking into account the date of superannuation on the basis of originally recorded birth date of the concerned workman, i.e. 25.11.1936 (according to which the concerned workman would stand superannuated on 30.11.1994), whereas the concerned workman claimed that the gratuity should be calculated and paid by taking into account 24.10.2001 as the date on which his service came to an end. 5.8 The said dispute reached the doors of the Controlling Authority when the concerned workman filed Gratuity Application No. 29 of 2002. 5.9 The Controlling Authority adjudicated the said application and held that the claimant would be entitled for gratuity for 34 years and accordingly, the Controlling Authority quantified the gratuity @ Rs. 2,12,061/- and since the corporation had paid gratuity Rs. 69,909/- towards gratuity, the set off to that extent was granted and the Controlling Authority directed the corporation to pay Rs. 1,42,152/-. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.4.2003 passed by the Controlling Authority in Gratuity Application No. 29 of 2002, the corporation filed appeal which was registered as Gratuity Appeal No. 163 of 2002 before the Appellate Authority. 69,909/- towards gratuity, the set off to that extent was granted and the Controlling Authority directed the corporation to pay Rs. 1,42,152/-. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.4.2003 passed by the Controlling Authority in Gratuity Application No. 29 of 2002, the corporation filed appeal which was registered as Gratuity Appeal No. 163 of 2002 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority adjudicated the appeal and vide order dated 22.7.2003, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. Against the said order, the corporation has taken out Special Civil Application No. 13785 of 2003. 7. While admitting the petition, vide order dated 13.1.2004, the Court observed, inter-alia, that: "3. Prima facie it appears that when the workman joined the service, the birth-date declared by the workman was 25-11-2036 and in the Departmental Proceedings, it was found that the subsequent birth-date of 11-3-1945 is not of the workman, but is of his brother. If the information supplied at the time when the employee joined the service is considered, he would have reached the age of superannuation on 30-11-1994 and the employee has not challenge the aforesaid decision in the departmental proceedings, whereby it was found that the correct birth-date of the employee is not 11-3-1945, but is 25-11-1936. Therefore, it prima facie appears that the workman/employee would not be entitled to the gratuity beyond the age of superannuation. 4. Hence, the interim relief granted earlier on 15-10-2003 shall continue as the interim relief with the further direction that the amount which is already deposited by the petitioner with the concerned authority shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit Receipt with any nationalized Bank initially for a period of two years and copy of such F.D.R. may be produced in the record of present petition." 8. From the order passed in Civil Application, it appears that the corporation has deposited the decreed amount, i.e. Rs. 1,42,152/-. The said amount has been invested in Fixed Deposit with Nationalised Bank. In the petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 13785 of 2003, In-charge Divisional Controller of the corporation filed an affidavit dated 6.3.2003, wherein he averred and stated that: "1. I say that respondent employee at the time filling of form for getting employment himself has stated his birth date as 25.11.1936. I further say and submit that respondent himself has produced a certificate wherein it is expressly stated that his birth date is 25.11.1936. I say that respondent employee at the time filling of form for getting employment himself has stated his birth date as 25.11.1936. I further say and submit that respondent himself has produced a certificate wherein it is expressly stated that his birth date is 25.11.1936. I further say and submit that the respondent has produced before the Corporation certificate issued by the school authority as per the register maintained by the school authority." 9. At the time of hearing of this petition, Mr. Rawal, learned advocate for the corporation submitted that when the concerned workman joined the service, he himself had declared that the date of his birth is 25.11.1936 and that subsequently, the concerned workman had approached the authority with School Leaving Certificate which reflected 11.3.1945 as the workman's date of birth and on that basis he claimed that the record/registers may be appropriately changed. It is also claimed that the said request was also accepted and necessary change was made, however, subsequently, it came to the notice of the corporation that there was some anomaly and irregularity and that, therefore, enquiry was made with the concerned school authority and during such enquiry it emerged that the School Leaving Certificate which was subsequently submitted by the concerned workman is his brother's School Leaving Certificate and the concerned workman had misled the corporation and he had misrepresented the facts by using his brother's certificate. On such misrepresentation, the concerned workman continued in service beyond the age of superannuation and when the said fact was established during the enquiry, the corporation passed order dated 20.10.2001 and relieved the concerned workman w.e.f. 24.10.2001 with further order that for calculation of retiral benefits, the birth date which was originally mentioned in the record, i.e. 25.11.1936 will be taken into account of and accordingly 30.11.1994 will be treated as date of superannuation and that, therefore, the gratuity amount was accordingly calculated and paid to the concerned workman. Learned advocate for the corporation submitted that the authority failed to appreciate above mentioned aspects and only on the ground that the date on which his service actually came to an end when the concerned workman was actually relieved can be taken into account and on that premise, the authority awarded further amount which is arbitrary and unjustified. 10. Learned advocate for the corporation submitted that the authority failed to appreciate above mentioned aspects and only on the ground that the date on which his service actually came to an end when the concerned workman was actually relieved can be taken into account and on that premise, the authority awarded further amount which is arbitrary and unjustified. 10. The submission by the corporation is opposed by learned advocate for the heirs of the concerned workman (who have subsequently (i.e. in 2007 filed petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 27304 of 2007 with request that the deposited amount may be allowed to be withdrawn) submitted that there is no error in the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority. She would submit that according to the provisions of the Act, relevant date is the date on which the service of the employee actually comes to an end and for the purpose of calculating gratuity amount, the said date should be taken into account by corporation and the heirs of the concerned workman. 11. A person who misrepresents facts which may mislead other person and as a result of such misrepresentation if that other person does something then the person who misrepresented, cannot take disadvantage of his own action nor he can be allowed to do so. 12. True it is that according to the provisions under the Act, gratuity becomes payable on the date when the service of an employee comes to an end on account of any of the reasons mentioned in section 4(1) of the Act. It is also true that in effect, the service of the concerned workman came to an end w.e.f. 24.10.2001 and the concerned workman had actually worked with the corporation till 24.10.2001. Under the circumstances, ordinarily and if the facts were clean and clear, not infected by misrepresentation, then the said submission would hold good and the concerned workman would be entitled for gratuity by taking into account the date on which his service came to an end and by taking into account. 13. However, the facts in present case are twisted and not as simple as the heirs of the concerned workman want to portray for claiming gratuity on the basis of the provisions under the Act. 14. Section 4(1) of the Act provides, inter-alia, that obligation to pay gratuity arises on superannuation/resignation etc. 13. However, the facts in present case are twisted and not as simple as the heirs of the concerned workman want to portray for claiming gratuity on the basis of the provisions under the Act. 14. Section 4(1) of the Act provides, inter-alia, that obligation to pay gratuity arises on superannuation/resignation etc. So far as superannuation is concerned, in every establishment it takes place at the age prescribed under the Rules of every establishment. Thus, service of an establishment comes to an end when the employee attains prescribed age. For the said purpose correct birth date of the employee will be taken into account. The employee is bound to declare correct birth date and employer is entitled to consider only that date as employee's birth date which is correct and certified by genuine, official and legally recognized document/certificate and not any other date which the employee - so as to sub-serve his ulterior motive - declare without support of genuine certificate. If incorrect detail is declared or correct detail is suppressed and/or substituted with incorrect detail, then the employer would be justified in ignoring incorrect detail and consider correct detail supported by legally recognized document. Even if an employee declares incorrect details and takes disadvantage on the basis of incorrect details then also the employer can take into account, and the employer cannot be restrained from considering, correct details/birth date for the purpose of superannuation of employee on the basis of correct birth date (supported by legally recognized and genuine certificate) and merely because incorrect details are mentioned by employee it does not and will not create any legally enforceable right in favour of said employee and such incorrect declaration will not prohibit employer from considering true and correct facts and details. 15. In present case, it has emerged that at the time when the concerned workman was appointed in service of the corporation, he himself had declared that his birth date is 25.11.1936. The said date was mentioned in the record of the corporation as his birth date and the said position continued for long time. 15. In present case, it has emerged that at the time when the concerned workman was appointed in service of the corporation, he himself had declared that his birth date is 25.11.1936. The said date was mentioned in the record of the corporation as his birth date and the said position continued for long time. Subsequently, the concerned workman approached the officer of the corporation and got the record changed/modified by submitting a School Leaving Certificate with the claim that it is his School Leaving Certificate and according to the details in the said School Leaving Certificate, his birth date should be changed in the record and it should reflect 11.3.1945 as his birth date in the light of the said School Leaving Certificate. The authority of the corporation seems to have made such change in the record and thereby the concerned workman continued in service beyond November 1994 when he would have retired on superannuation on the basis of the date which was originally declared by him and was recorded in the register. However, in view of subsequent modification, he continued in service until the corporation noticed irregularity on account of the concerned workman's misrepresentation. The concerned workman's explanation was called for and was considered. Even some enquiry was made with the claimant's brother because it came out during verification process undertaken by the corporation that the School Leaving Certificate which the concerned workman had subsequently submitted, was his brother's School Leaving Certificate. On the basis of the verification process which is recorded by the corporation in form of enquiry, the corporation passed the order dated 22.7.2003. 16. It is not in dispute that the concerned workman never challenged the said order dated 22.7.2003. The said order dated 22.7.2003 has, thus, attained finality. For all practical purposes, the said order deserves to be taken into account. 17. It appears that the concerned workman was paid Rs. 69,909/- towards gratuity which was calculated by taking into account 25.11.1936 as the workman's birth date and 30.11.1994 as the date of superannuation. The said amount was received by the concerned workman and subsequently, the concerned workman initiated proceeding by filing Gratuity Application No. 29 of 2002, wherein the impugned order came to be passed by the Controlling Authority. 18. 69,909/- towards gratuity which was calculated by taking into account 25.11.1936 as the workman's birth date and 30.11.1994 as the date of superannuation. The said amount was received by the concerned workman and subsequently, the concerned workman initiated proceeding by filing Gratuity Application No. 29 of 2002, wherein the impugned order came to be passed by the Controlling Authority. 18. The Controlling Authority has failed to appreciate that the concerned workman had continued in service after 30.11.1994 till 24.10.2001, because of his misrepresentation and without any right in law and by misleading the corporation (by submitting his brother's School Leaving Certificate). Without considering the said fact and without appreciating the fact that the concerned workman took advantage of his misrepresentation for almost 7 years, i.e. from 1994 to 2001 and continued in service, he cannot be allowed to gain further advantage of his own wrong. 19. The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that by continuing in service from 1994 to 2001, the concerned workman had marred opportunity/chance of other person who could have been appointed/promoted in his place and he, by his misrepresentation, earned salary for almost 7 years. 20. There cannot be reward for such conduct and action i.e. for such misrepresentation. 21. If the workman is considered eligible for gratuity for said period and if direction to pay gratuity is passed/maintained then it would amount to reward for his act of misrepresentation. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 22. On this count, the Court has to proceed only on the basis of the proceedings recorded by the corporation and the order dated 20.10.2001 because the concerned workman has not placed any other material on record and the said proceeding and/or the order dated 20.10.2001 have not been challenged by the concerned workman or his heirs and the said order is not set aside. The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority passed impugned orders without appreciating the fact that the concerned workman cannot be and should not be allowed to take further advantage on his own wrong. 23. The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority passed impugned orders without appreciating the fact that the concerned workman cannot be and should not be allowed to take further advantage on his own wrong. 23. In view of the fact that the corporation did not and has not recovered or demanded recovery of the salary paid to the concerned workman from November 1994 to October 2001, however, the order directing the corporation to even pay gratuity for the said period would amount to giving reward for such misrepresentation and wrongful act. The Court cannot approve such order. 24. Therefore, the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and are hereby set aside. 25. The petition filed by the corporation, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 13786 of 2003 is allowed. Rule is made absolutely in the said petition. Consequently, the petition filed by the heirs of the concerned workman, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 27304 of 2007 fails and deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged.