JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. Petitioners are the State of Uttarakhand and others. They call in question order dated 23.11.2011 (Annexure No. 15) passed by the Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 8 of 2010. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: The original respondent in the writ petition, who was the claim petitioner and who is hereinafter referred to as the claim petitioner, was engaged as a semi-skilled labourer on daily-wage basis since 01.08.1988 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Lakhwad Bandh Nirman Khand-IV, Department of Irrigation, Dehradun. She continued as a semi-skilled labourer until 29.10.1997, the date on which she was taken into work-charge establishment. The service book of the claim petitioner was opened on 11.02.1997 by the Assistant Engineer. Therein, her date of birth was shown as 10.02.1950. The claim petitioner had put her thumb impression. She continued to work in the work-charge establishment as Varkandas until 13.09.2004 when she was taken into regular establishment as Class IV. By order dated 13.09.2004 (Annexure No. 3), the appointees were asked to give their birth certificates among other certificates. Annexure No. 4 was submitted by the claim petitioner, wherein she mentioned that, since her date of birth and educational qualification have already been mentioned in the service book as work-charge employee, as such she is submitting other documents like medical certificate, etc. The petitioners then revert to an earlier date, namely, 24.09.1997 and state that, on the said date, the claim petitioner had represented along with age certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, in which it was shown that she is 38 years as on 24.09.1997. In the representation, the claim petitioner contended that, in the service book, her date of birth was wrongly recorded as 10.02.1950 and the same may be corrected on the basis of the medical certificate. She contended that she had made a representation for change of her date of birth, but nothing had happened. Annexure No. 7 purports to be a communication by the Executive Engineer asking the concerned Assistant Engineer to state the reason why he has asked the claim petitioner to submit her medical certificate. She contended that she had made a representation for change of her date of birth, but nothing had happened. Annexure No. 7 purports to be a communication by the Executive Engineer asking the concerned Assistant Engineer to state the reason why he has asked the claim petitioner to submit her medical certificate. There is reference to U.P. Recruitment in Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 to contend that, once an entry has been made in the service book, the same cannot be corrected and no representation can be entertained for making change in the date of birth. Likewise, Annexure No. 9 purports to be the Uttarakhand Recruitment in Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 2003. The authorities rejected the representation of the claim petitioner vide order dated 30.12.2009 (Annexure No. 10), wherein it was stated that her claim for change of date of birth is not maintainable. It was also mentioned that, while inducting her in regular service, in the seniority list of work-charge employees issued by the Chief Engineer, her date of birth has been shown as 10.02.1950. She was addressed Annexure No. 11 letter informing her that she will stand retired on 28.02.2010 on attaining the age of 60 years. It is, thereupon, that Annexure No. 12 Claim Petition was filed. The said Claim Petition has been allowed by the Public Services Tribunal vide Annexure No. 15 judgment. It is against the same, as already noticed, that the writ petition has been filed. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the claim petitioner passed away and her Legal Heirs have been brought on the party array. 4. We have heard Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Kishore Kumar along with Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned counsel for the respondents. Findings of the Tribunal: 5. The following are the findings recorded by the Tribunal: “10. Service book of the petitioner in original has been produced by the respondents. Perusal of the same reveals that in column of service book, regarding date of birth by the Christian Era, as nearly as can be ascertained, there is cutting and overwriting one by different pens. The perusal of the service book reveals that it was prepared on 11.2.1997. Service book of the petitioner in original has been produced by the respondents. Perusal of the same reveals that in column of service book, regarding date of birth by the Christian Era, as nearly as can be ascertained, there is cutting and overwriting one by different pens. The perusal of the service book reveals that it was prepared on 11.2.1997. The cutting in the service book has been attested on 21.3, however, the year (cutting attestation) has not been mentioned under the signature of concerned authority. The perusal of the column of educational qualification reveals that earlier the education of the petitioner in the service book as alleged by the petitioner, was entered as fifth pass, but later on it was cut. Service book also reveals that the date of birth entered in the service book, as is now legible, is 10.2.1950 in the words and numbers. This has been entered in a different ink by a different pen as is clearly visible when compared to the other entries made in the service book. There is a certificate contained in the service book, issued by the C.M.O., regarding fitness for Government service. As per this certificate, on 11.4.2008 the age of the petitioner, according to her statement is fifty and by appearance it was fifty years. 11. Perusal of the Annexure-9 to the petitioner further reveals that the Executive Engineer, Lakhwad Bandh, Lakhwad had written a letter to the Assistant Engineer, Nirman Khand-IV, Dehradun. As per this letter, the service book of the petitioner was opened on 11.2.1997 and the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book was mentioned as 10.2.1950 and her educational qualification was entered as fifth class pass. It was further stated that the petitioner draws her pay by affixing her thumb impression and her thumb impression has also been attested. The Assistant Engineer vide his letter dated 873/AE-4/MR dated 29.9.1997 wrote a letter to C.M.O. to ascertain the age of the petitioner. Through this letter the Executive Engineer enquired from the Assistant Engineer as to what was the justification of such a letter being written to the C.M.O. and why such a certificate has not been remitted to him and called for his explanation. Through this letter the Executive Engineer enquired from the Assistant Engineer as to what was the justification of such a letter being written to the C.M.O. and why such a certificate has not been remitted to him and called for his explanation. The petitioner has also produced the medical certificate issued by the C.M.O. in pursuance of the letter written by the Assistant Engineer which is Annexure-3 and as per this medical certificate, her age was ascertained as 38 years on 24.9.1997. 12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that manipulations have been carried out in the service book of the petitioner and the entries regarding date of birth in her service book have been tempered and overwritten after its preparation. The same does not clearly reveal as to on what basis the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned in the service book. This contention of the respondents is not tenable that the date of birth as now appears in the service book was recorded on the basis of disclosure of the petitioner. If that was the case, there was no need to write to the C.M.O. to ascertain the date of birth of the petitioner.” 6. In paragraph 13, there is reference to the case-law. In paragraphs 14 & 15, it is further held as follows: “14. Keeping in view the above law and the fact that the petitioner soon after joining the service, had been making representations to correct her date of birth, we are of the opinion that there is clinching evidence in the from of medical certificate issued by the C.M.O. that at the time of entry into service the age of the petitioner was 38 years and her date of birth mentioned in the service book has been tempered. 15. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has been wrongly retired from service w.e.f. 28.2.2010 on the basis of entry of date of birth in her service book. If that date of birth is taken into consideration at the time entry into service by the respondents, the petitioner would retire in the year 2019. In view of the above discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed.” 7. The Claim Petition was, accordingly, allowed. The petitioners were directed to correct the date of birth of the claim petitioner in accordance with the medical certificate. In view of the above discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed.” 7. The Claim Petition was, accordingly, allowed. The petitioners were directed to correct the date of birth of the claim petitioner in accordance with the medical certificate. The claim petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service within two months from the date of production of a copy of the order with all consequential service benefits till her superannuation in accordance with the age mentioned in the medical certificate. It was, however, made clear that, since the claim petitioner had not discharged the service from the date of her retirement, she would not be entitled to any pay for the period for which she remained out of service. Contentions of the petitioners: 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that this is a case, where the entry regarding the date of birth was made in the service book of the claim petitioner. When she was brought into the regular service in the year 2004, she had given Annexure No. 4, English translation of which reads as follows: “To The Executive Engineer, Lakhwad Bandh Nirman Khand-4, Dehradun. Sub.: Regarding joining in the regular establishment from work-charge establishment. Sir, It is submitted that, in compliance of your letter No. 1395/L.B.N.K.-4/W-5, dated 13.09.04, I am taking over charge on the post of Varkandas in the regular establishment in the afternoon of 13.09.04. Certificates relating to date of birth, educational qualification already stand recorded in the service book and the attested photocopies of other certificates are enclosed herewith. Encl.: 1. Certificate of the Medical Officer. 2. Copy of Caste Certificate. 3. Character certificates by two Gazetted Officers. Applicant Ramwati (Varkandas)” 9. On a perusal of the same, it is contended, it becomes clear that the claim petitioner had accepted the entry regarding her date of birth in the service book. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding interpolation in the service book is not correct. It is pointed out that, regarding the date of birth as such, there is no interpolation. It is further submitted that the claim petitioner, on the eve of her retirement as per the date of birth entered in the service book, had approached the Tribunal. It is pointed out that, regarding the date of birth as such, there is no interpolation. It is further submitted that the claim petitioner, on the eve of her retirement as per the date of birth entered in the service book, had approached the Tribunal. Learned Standing Counsel relied on judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Registrar General, High Court of Madras vs. M. Manickam & others, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 245 and State of U.P. & another vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 49 . Contentions of the respondents: 10. Per contra, Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that no case is made out for interference in the order passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Court should bear in mind that the claim petitioner was an illiterate woman belonging to Scheduled Caste community. It is, further, submitted that it was the Assistant Engineer, who directed her to get her date of birth on the basis of a medical examination. It is also contended that the service record cannot be relied upon, as it purports to rely on a certificate saying that the claim petitioner had passed Class V, whereas she had not passed 5th standard as she is an illiterate lady. It is further contended that the Tribunal has entered a finding relating to the unreliability of the entry in the service record, which we have already extracted. The interpolations rendered the entry relating to the date of birth clearly unreliable, it is contended. It is submitted that different inks have been used and it casts a dark cloud on the entry relating to the date of birth. Learned counsel relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited & others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 83. Findings: 11. We may briefly notice the state of the law. In Registrar General, High Court of Madras vs. M. Manickam & others, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 245 , the court was dealing with a case, where the request for change in the date of birth was sought to be supported with reference to a horoscope. We may refer to the following paragraphs: “19. Reliance is placed by respondent No. 1 on the evidence of the doctor and the medical certificate. We may refer to the following paragraphs: “19. Reliance is placed by respondent No. 1 on the evidence of the doctor and the medical certificate. PW-2 is Shri Newmen who has proved the medical certificate stating that he was the Chairman of the Medical Board and that the medical certificate was given to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 by the Medical Board which is Ext. A-12. He stated in his examination-in-chief that he was the Chief of the Board formed for issuance of Ex. A-12, which is relied upon by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and one doctor in Pathology, one General Medical Expert and one Radiologist were in that team. He has also stated that the said medical team generally examined plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and examined him radiologically and came to the conclusion as per Ex. A-12. He also stated that what kind of examination was conducted on plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is noted in the report of the Medical Board. He has specifically stated in his deposition that he has not produced the test report or its copy before the Court showing supporting documents and the tests based on which they had determined the age of respondent No. 1/plaintiff. 20. It must be indicated at this stage that respondent No. 1/plaintiff himself went to the Medical Board and got himself examined and obtained the aforesaid report which was brought in evidence. At the top of the aforesaid medical certificate, it is written as “Age Proof Certificate”. The said age proof certificate is signed by the Chairman and also signed by two other members. What is recorded in the said age proof certificate is extracted below:- “This is to certify that Medical Board at Tirupur have carefully examined Thiru Manickam, S/o Thiru V. Muthusamy, Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, an applicant for age certificate. His identification marks are; 1. A Black mole on the right collar bone. 2. A Black mole on the right hand. According to my physical examination and personal of his appearance of the individual, he appears to be about 48 years (Forty Eight years) according to his own statement” 21. In our considered opinion, the said medical certificate is very vague and unreliable. Whether or not any radiological examination was done and if so, of what nature, and also whether any ossification test was done or not is not reflected from the said report. In our considered opinion, the said medical certificate is very vague and unreliable. Whether or not any radiological examination was done and if so, of what nature, and also whether any ossification test was done or not is not reflected from the said report. It is only stated in the certificate that on the basis of physical examination and from his appearance and on the basis of his own statement the age of the respondent was determined as 48 years. 22. This Court in the case of Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath v. State of Assam reported in (2001) 5 SCC 714 while dealing with the reliability of the ossification test held as follows:- “21. … An x-ray ossification test may provide a surer basis for determining the age of an individual than the opinion of a medical expert but it can by no means be so infallible and accurate a test as to indicate the exact date of birth of the person concerned. Too much of reliance cannot be placed upon textbooks, on medical jurisprudence and toxicology while determining the age of an accused. In this vast country with varied latitudes, heights, environment, vegetation and nutrition, the height and weight cannot be expected to be uniform.”” 12. The court took the view as follows: “32. Keeping the aforesaid principles laid down by this Court in our mind, we proceed to examine the evidentiary value of the horoscope which is relied upon by the respondent No. 1 in support of his claim. The aforesaid horoscope is the basis and foundation on which the respondent No. 1 primarily relies upon. The said horoscope, therefore, must be shown to have been made by a person who has special knowledge of making such a horoscope. The creator of the horoscope or the writer is not examined in the present case as he was stated to be dead. None of his family members or any of his acquaintances was examined to prove his handwriting. 36. We reiterate the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision that horoscope is a very weak piece of material to prove age of a person and that heavy onus lies on a person who wants to press it into service to prove its authenticity. 36. We reiterate the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision that horoscope is a very weak piece of material to prove age of a person and that heavy onus lies on a person who wants to press it into service to prove its authenticity. We are of a firm opinion that respondent No. 1 has failed to discharge his onus in proving the authenticity of the aforesaid horoscope on which reliance is placed. 37. Since the aforesaid horoscope is a primary document on which reliance is placed for change of his date of birth, therefore, the same is required to be looked into very carefully and minutely so as to ascertain the genuineness of the claim of respondent No. 1. There cannot be any bar to examine the authenticity and evidentiary value of the same while exercising the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India permits such a scrutiny particularly when it relates to the change of date of birth of a person who seeks to get an advantage to his benefit to which he otherwise may not be entitled to.” 13. The court in the aforesaid judgment also referred to the judgment in Punjab & Haryana High Court vs. Megh Raj Garg & another, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 482 , which dealt with the case of a Government servant seeking correction of date of birth. The court, in the said case, took the view that it is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. 14. We may also notice the judgment in State of U.P. & another vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 49 , which related to a Class IV employee. Therein, the court referred to the case-law and held, inter alia, as follows: “9. ….. This is certainly an important and relevant aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. Therein, the court referred to the case-law and held, inter alia, as follows: “9. ….. This is certainly an important and relevant aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of clinching materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book…..” 15. We may now notice the case-law relied on behalf of the respondents, namely, Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited & others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 83. In that case, the facts are stated as follows: “3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute: Appellant was appointed on or about 01.07.1968 as Patrolman by respondent No. 5. His date of birth in the service book was recorded as 27.2.1934. However, in the school leaving certificate of appellant, his date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1948. 4. In April, 1988 when appellant approached the office of respondents at Basti to know the quantum of leave balance in his account, he came to know that his date of birth had been wrongly recorded as 27.2.1934 in stead and in place of 1.7.1948. He immediately filed a representation. 5. 4. In April, 1988 when appellant approached the office of respondents at Basti to know the quantum of leave balance in his account, he came to know that his date of birth had been wrongly recorded as 27.2.1934 in stead and in place of 1.7.1948. He immediately filed a representation. 5. Respondents, however, did not take any action thereupon till September, 1989. Appellant filed another representation on 2.9.1989. The said representation was forwarded to the office of respondent No.5, the Executive Engineer, EDD, U.P. State Electricity Board, Govind Nagar, Kanpur for correction of the date of birth in appellant’s service book alongwith his school leaving certificate. 6. Indisputably in the employment of respondent-Corporation, another employee by the name Mohd. Yunus Khan had been working. For all intent and purport it now stands admitted that the date of birth of the said Mohd. Yunus Khan (not the appellant herein) was 27.2.1934 and the same has been wrongly recorded in the service book of appellant. By an order dated 7.4.1992, payment of salary to appellant was stopped on the premise that he should have retired with effect from 29.2.1992. He received a letter from respondent No.4, Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Basti, dated 7.4.1992 asking him to explain the correct position. He did so. He allegedly also appeared before the authority.” 16. It is noted by the court that the appellant filed a school leaving certificate of 5th class with a view to show that his date of birth was 01.07.1948; but, the medical certificate of another Mohd. Yunus Khan was attached to the service book of the appellant and the confusion arose. The appellant was made to retire on 29.02.1992. It is, accordingly, that he filed a writ petition in the year 1992. The court, inter alia, held as follows: “14. No material has been placed before us in regard to existence of a statutory rule fixing a time frame for filing an application for correction of the date of birth in the service record. Even if there was such a provision, the same, in our opinion, would not be of much significance as respondents had not shown that the mistake in the matter of recording of date of birth in the service record was known to appellant at any earlier point of time. Even if there was such a provision, the same, in our opinion, would not be of much significance as respondents had not shown that the mistake in the matter of recording of date of birth in the service record was known to appellant at any earlier point of time. If appellant’s contention is correct that he came to learn about it only in April, 1988 whereafter he filed a representation, it must be held that there was no delay on his part in this behalf. An employee may take action as is permissible in law only after coming to know that a mistake has been committed by the employer.” 17. The court also took the view that the appellant had filed a representation in the year 1988 and that should have been considered at the hands of the authorities. Had such a step been taken, the principles of natural justice of giving an opportunity of hearing to the other Mohd. Yunus Khan could have also been complied with. It is in such circumstances that the court took the view that the appellant be held to have retired in 2006 treating his date of birth as 01.07.1948. 18. We may notice that, in the chronology of the case-law, the judgments rendered in (2010) 6 SCC 482 and (2011) 9 SCC 245 came after the judgment in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 83. 19. In this case, there is another feature, which cannot be missed. In the year 1997, the service book of the claim petitioner was opened. In the same, her date of birth was shown as 10.02.1950. It may be true that, in the year 1997, a representation was filed seeking correction of the same. Thereafter, in 2004, the appointment of the claim petitioner was regularized. At that time, as is the practice, certificates showing various aspects, including date of birth, were demanded from the claim petitioner. At that stage, the response of the claim petitioner is most relevant. It is contained in Annexure No. 4, which we have already extracted. Though she had filed a representation seeking correction, she made a statement that her date of birth is already on the record and she submitted other certificates. Even at that stage, she had already filed a representation seeking correction of the date of birth. It is contained in Annexure No. 4, which we have already extracted. Though she had filed a representation seeking correction, she made a statement that her date of birth is already on the record and she submitted other certificates. Even at that stage, she had already filed a representation seeking correction of the date of birth. So, she must be treated as being aware that her date of birth in the service book is shown as 10.02.1950. When she got the regular employment, she responded to the demand for production of date of birth certificate, among other certificates, by pointing out that her date of birth is there on the record. So, this is a case, where the claim petitioner not only did not pursue the application for correction, but took a contrary stand that the date of birth as shown in the service book may be maintained. She produced the other certificates. 20. Still more relevant is the fact that the claim petitioner was due to retire as per the entry in the service book in the year 2010. The representation was rejected, no doubt, in the year 2009. She was made aware of the fact that she is due to retire in 2010. From 2004 till 2010, the claim petitioner did not pursue the matter relating to correction of date of birth. It is brought to our notice that she represented in the year 2009. It is to be remembered that she was due to retire in the year 2010. It is just on the eve of her retirement that she represented and the representation was rejected. Thereafter, she approached the Tribunal. We cannot ignore all these aspects. In the matter of change of date of birth, it is the duty of the employee to follow the matter relating to correction without any delay. 21. The second aspect, at any rate, is relating to the nature of the proof produced to show that she was born on a different date. We can take it as a settled law that a person seeking correction of date of birth is expected to produce irrefutable evidence; the evidence should be clinching to show that the entry regarding date of birth is wrong and the entry, which he/she canvasses, is correct. We can take it as a settled law that a person seeking correction of date of birth is expected to produce irrefutable evidence; the evidence should be clinching to show that the entry regarding date of birth is wrong and the entry, which he/she canvasses, is correct. Though we notice that there is no specific challenge to the medical certificate which is produced, we may notice that, in the said medical certificate, what is stated is that the claim petitioner is about 38 years of age. There is no ossification test done. It is specifically emphasized by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the petitioners. No doubt, on the basis of medical examination and x-ray by a team of doctors, the date of birth was arrived at. There is no other supporting piece of evidence produced by the claim petitioner to establish that her date of birth is what she claims. No doubt, we do agree that the claim petitioner may have been an illiterate person and belonging to Scheduled Caste community; but, even that may not be sufficient in the facts of this case, where the claim petitioner herself, by Annexure No. 4, took the stand that whatever stated in the service book may be accepted. She waited again for about 5 years to represent the matter. 22. In Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited & others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 83, it may noticed, the appellant had filed a school leaving certificate of 5th class to show that his date of birth was 01.07.1948. There was also a medical examination, where, no doubt, his age at that time was noted as 54 years. On immediately coming to know of the matter, the appellant therein had represented in the year 1988. Therefore, the facts are distinguishable. 23. There is also a dispute raised by the claim petitioner regarding interpolation in the date of birth, which has been referred to in the findings of the Tribunal. Ordinarily, the findings of the Tribunal are not interfered with under Article 226. We will even proceed on the basis that there is some interpolation in the service book, though it is specifically contended by the learned Standing Counsel that there is no interpolation as far as the entry regarding the date of birth is concerned. Ordinarily, the findings of the Tribunal are not interfered with under Article 226. We will even proceed on the basis that there is some interpolation in the service book, though it is specifically contended by the learned Standing Counsel that there is no interpolation as far as the entry regarding the date of birth is concerned. We have already noticed the state of the material, which was sought to be produced to show that the claim petitioner was having a different date of birth. It is in the form of a medical certificate alone. We have noticed that the law requires irrefutable or clinching piece of evidence. Though we notice that specific ground as such is not raised regarding the medical certificate, the material produced, which has been acted upon by the Tribunal, appears to be wanting in the quality of conclusiveness or irrefutability and it cannot be said to be of clinching nature so as to enable the Tribunal to direct the substitution of the date of birth. 24. Therefore, in the facts of this case, noting the conduct of the claim petitioner as we have in the course of the judgment and also the material on the basis of which change is sought, even proceeding on the basis that there are some interpolations, we would think that the Tribunal was not justified in ordering correction of the date of birth and, consequently, postponing the date of retirement. 25. Consequently, we feel that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order will stand set aside and the claim petition will stand dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. We make it clear that the question, whether the claim petitioner was entitled to have the period she worked as a work-charge employee counted for the purpose of pension, is being left open. No order as to costs.