ORDER : Mr. Govind Mathur, J. 1. To assail validity of the orders dated 31.5.2016 and 17.5.2016 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Applications No.290/00120/2015 and 290/00119/2014 respectively, these petitions for writ are preferred. 2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the respondent original applicant entered in service of the respondents on 15.7.1977. At the time of appointment he submitted an affidavit with assertion that his date of birth is 16.9.1950. The date of birth of the respondent original applicant subsequently in certain other documents was shown as 16.9.1956. In his service record too the date of birth in numbers is shown as 16.9.1956, but in script it is mentioned as ßlkSyg flrEcj mUuhl lkS ipklÞ The petitioners respondent under the order Anx.1 decided to retire the respondent original applicant from service w.e.f. 23.8.2013 with specific assertion that he attained the age of retirement on 30.9.2010, but remain in service erroneously uptil 23.8.2013. An order was also passed to have recovery of wages paid to the respondent original applicant for a period of 2 years, 10 months and 23 days, said to be the period for which he served in excess. Prior to that, the respondent original applicant under an application dated 27.6.2013 made a request to the appointing authority to allow voluntary retirement to him. Being failed to have voluntary retirement from service and also being aggrieved by the decision of the petitioners respondent to treat 16.9.1950 as the date of birth, the respondent original applicant preferred two original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, those came to be accepted under the judgments impugned. 3. Learned Tribunal, after considering the record available, arrived at the conclusion that the entries made in service record, other relevant documents and the certificate given by a competent medical practitioner is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the date of birth of the respondent original applicant is 16.9.1956, thus, he is entitled to remain in service upto 16.9.2016. Being aggrieved by the same these petitions for writ are preferred. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned Central Administrative Tribunal failed to appreciate that at the time of entering into service the respondent original applicant submitted an affidavit disclosing his date of birth as 16.9.1950 and i.e. a conclusive proof to settle the date of birth. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned Central Administrative Tribunal failed to appreciate that at the time of entering into service the respondent original applicant submitted an affidavit disclosing his date of birth as 16.9.1950 and i.e. a conclusive proof to settle the date of birth. It is further submitted that the documents on which the Tribunal relied upon were prepared at subsequent stage on basis of the wrong information supplied by the respondent original applicant himself, therefore, those are of no help to determine his actual date of birth. 5. Per contra, as per learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent original applicant the date of birth given in different documents is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that 16.9.1956 is correct date of birth of the respondent original applicant. So far as the affidavit submitted by the respondent original applicant at the time of his initial appointment is concerned, it is submitted that the respondent original applicant is an illiterate person and, therefore, he put his signatures without going through the contents of the affidavit and, therefore, the same is of no consequence. 6. Heard learned counsels and also perused the record. 7. From perusal of the affidavit, that was submitted by the respondent original applicant at the time of his initial appointment, it is apparent that he disclosed 16.9.1950 as his date of birth. In the service record also the date of birth in words is mentioned ßlkSyg flrEcj mUuhl lkS ipklÞ . There is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that such entry in service record was made subsequently or mischievously. It is pertinent to notice that the entry relating to date of birth in numbers too is having some interpolation and it can be read as 16.9.1950 as well as 16.9.1956. 8. So far as the medical certificate is concerned, that is pertaining to fitness of the respondent original applicant and i.e. nothing to do for determination of his date of birth. The other documents on which the Central Administrative Tribunal relied upon were prepared at quite later stage and in all those documents the date of birth is shown on basis of the information given by the respondent original applicant himself. 9. The other documents on which the Central Administrative Tribunal relied upon were prepared at quite later stage and in all those documents the date of birth is shown on basis of the information given by the respondent original applicant himself. 9. In entirety, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the first version given by the respondent original applicant about his date of birth. In view of it, we are of considered opinion that the Tribunal erred while treating 16.9.1956 as the date of birth of the respondent original applicant. The retirement of the respondent original applicant from service, as such, is required to be made by treating 16.9.1950 as his date of birth. All pensionary and post retiral benefits are required to be determined by treating 16.9.1950 as the date of birth of the respondent original applicant. 10. So far as recovery of the amount said to be paid in excess to the respondent original applicant against wages and other allowances is concerned, that was earned by him by discharging duties or in other words by selling his labour, therefore, i.e. not required to be recovered from him. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition No.205/2017 is allowed. The order dated 31.5.2016, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, is set aside and the original application preferred by the respondent original applicant is dismissed. The writ petition No.206/2017 is dismissed. No recovery of the amount said to be paid in excess to the respondent original applicant is to be made on the account that he over-stayed in service.