JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to insert the correct date of birth of the petitioner i.e. 29.12.1976 instead of 06.12.1975 in his service book in terms with the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2009 & 30.10.2009 respectively passed in Title Suit No. 125/2003 which was affirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, during filing of the writ petition, was posted as the Deputy Inspector General of Police/Additional Police Commissioner, Mumbai. At the time of getting admission in Navodaya Vidyalaya, Masaria, Gumla, the petitioner’s date of birth was wrongly entered in the school record as 06.12.1975 whereas his correct date of birth was 29.12.1976. As soon as the said mistake came to the notice of the petitioner’s father, he executed an affidavit in the month of November, 1990 to the effect that the correct date of birth of his son was 29.12.1976 instead of 06.12.1975. Though a representation in this regard was also made to the Principal of the said school on 28.06.1996, yet no positive step was taken by the school administration in that regard. Thereafter, a writ petition being C.W.J.C No. 1932/97(R) was filed before the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) stating that the Principal of the said school had not considered the earlier representation filed by the petitioner and further submitting that he would file a fresh representation making out a case of correction of age. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14 .09.1998 directing the Principal of the school to dispose of the petitioner’s fresh representation for correction of his age within two months from the date of filing of the same. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner filed a representation, however, the concerned respondent did not comply the said order by disposing of the representation. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 104/2001 before this Court against non-compliance of the order dated 14.09.1998 which was finally disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court on that issue. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 104/2001 before this Court against non-compliance of the order dated 14.09.1998 which was finally disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court on that issue. 3. The petitioner thereafter filed a declaratory suit being Title Suit No. 125/2003 which was finally allowed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 09.10.2009 & 30.10.2009 respectively passed by the Court of the Additional Munsif-I, Ranchi holding that he was entitled for a declaration that his date of birth was 29.12.1976 and not 06.12.1975. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation on 26.04.2010 before the Sr. Deputy Assistant (Establishment), Office of the Director General of Police, Mumbai, Maharashtra for correction of his date of birth upon which the said authority after making positive recommendation in terms with the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 125/2003, referred it to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai vide letter dated 22.06.2010. In the meantime, aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2009 & 30.10.2009 respectively, the defendant/Union of India & others preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 54/10 before the Judicial Commissioner, XVII, Ranchi, however, the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2015 upholding the same. 4. The petitioner then filed Execution Case No. 07/2010(B) which was dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2018 observing that the said title suit was a declaratory one and hence it could not be executed. It is further submitted that during pendency of the suit before the Civil Court regarding correction in the petitioner’s date of birth, he was appointed as an Officer of Indian Police Service in Maharashtra Cadre in the year 2003 and his date of birth was entered in his service record as 06.12.1975 as per his academic record. The petitioner as well as his father tried for suitable correction in the date of birth by filing several representations, however, no action was taken by the respondents in that regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that due to wrong entry of the date of birth, the petitioner has been shown two days older to his elder brother, namely, Manoj Pradhan, which itself suggests that a mistake had occurred while recording his date of birth in the school record as well as the service record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that due to wrong entry of the date of birth, the petitioner has been shown two days older to his elder brother, namely, Manoj Pradhan, which itself suggests that a mistake had occurred while recording his date of birth in the school record as well as the service record. 5. Per-contra, learned C.G.C appearing for the respondents raises an objection with respect to maintainability of the writ petition contending that since at the time of filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner was posted in the State of Maharashtra, he should have filed the same in the Bombay High Court. It is further submitted that it is an established rule under All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1958’] that the date of birth, as accepted by the Central Government, shall not be subject to any alteration, except in case of bonafide clerical mistake. The date of birth indicated by the petitioner in his application form filled up for the purpose of appearing in the Civil Services (Main) Examination was 06.12.1975 which was accordingly incorporated in his service record. Thus, it is not a case where the date of birth i.e. 06.12.1975 was incorrectly recorded in the service book as a result of any bona fide clerical mistake and hence the question of alteration of his date of birth does not arise. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner has sought direction upon the concerned respondents to correct his date of birth mentioned in the service record pursuant to the judgment and decree 09.10.2009 & 30.10.2009 respectively passed in Title Suit No. 125/2003, subsequently affirmed by the appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2015 passed in Title Appeal No. 54 of 2010. 7. The primary argument of learned C.G.C appearing for the respondent-Union of India is that the present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court as the petitioner has been allocated Maharashtra Cadre. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding correction in his date of birth in the service record, he may file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. 8. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding correction in his date of birth in the service record, he may file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. 8. The said objection of learned counsel for the respondents with respect to maintainability of the writ petition is not acceptable as major part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner studied in the State of Jharkhand during which the dispute with respect to his date of birth arose. The judgment and decree in aforesaid declaratory suit have also been passed by the Court of the Additional Munsif-I, Ranchi i.e. situated within the State of Jharkhand. The ground that the petitioner has been allocated Maharashtra Cadre, cannot be sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of this Court from entertaining the writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents for correction of his date of birth in the service record. Thus, the objection of learned C.G.C with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition is hereby rejected. 9. The next limb of argument of learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India is that in view of Sub-rule 16(4) of Rule 16-A of the Rules, 1958, the date of birth as accepted by the Central Government shall not be subject to any alteration, except where it is established that a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed in accepting the date of birth. The mistake, if any, occurred while mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record, cannot be said to be a bonafide clerical mistake as he had mentioned his date of birth in the application form as 06.12.1975 which was entered in his service record. 10. To appreciate the said contention of learned C.G.C, it would be appropriate to quote Rule 16-A of the Rules, 1958 which reads as under:- “16-A Acceptance of date of birth 16(1) For the purpose of determination of the date of superannuation of a member of the service, such date shall be calculated with reference to the date of his birth as accepted by the Central Government under this rule. 16(2) In relation to a person appointed, after the commencement of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Amendment Rules, 1971 (a) Indian Administrative Service under clause (a) or clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) rules, 1954; or (b) the Indian Police Service under clause (a) or clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954; or (c) the Indian Forest Service under clause (a) or clause (aa) of sub-rule (2) of rule 4 of the Indian Forest Service(Recruitment) Rules, 1966; The date of birth as declared by such person in the application for recruitment to the service shall be accepted by the Central Government as the date of birth of such person. 16(3) In relation to a person to whom sub-rule (2) does not apply, the date of birth as recorded in the service book or other similar official document maintained by the concerned government shall be accepted by the Central Government, as the date of birth of such person. 16(4) The date of birth as accepted by the Central Government shall not be subject to any alteration except where it is established that a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed in accepting the date of birth under sub-rule (2) or (3).” 11. Thus, the date of birth as declared by a person in the application for recruitment to the service shall be accepted by the Central Government as the date of birth of such person and it shall not be altered, except a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed in accepting the date of birth. 12. I have perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. C. Rama Swamy & Ors. 12. I have perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. C. Rama Swamy & Ors. reported in (1997) 4 SCC 647 , as has been relied upon by learned C.G.C. In the said case, the respondent was an IPS officer of 1968 batch, who had submitted his representation dated 04.09.1982 for correction in his date of birth after fourteen years of joining the service on the ground that after demise of his mother, while going through various papers in his house, he found his horoscope which showed that his actual date of birth was 15.06.1941 and thereafter he obtained extracts from the record of birth from the Sub-Registrar’s Office, which also indicated the date of birth as mentioned in the horoscope. The said respondent also filed a suit for mandatory injunction which was granted to him and thereafter he got the entry of his date of birth made in the Senior School Leaving Certificate corrected as 15.06.1941 and then applied for correction in his date of birth in the service record. The appellant having refused to correct the date of birth of the respondent, he filed O.A No. 383 of 1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the appellant to correct the date of birth of the said petitioner. The matter ultimately travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein Their Lordships have held that the statutory Rule i.e. Rule 16-A, except in cases where a clerical error had occurred, did not entitle an officer to ask for changing the date of birth which was once recorded in his application as mentioned in sub-rule 16(2) or in the service-book as mentioned in sub-rule 16(3) of Rule 16-A. It has further been held that in a case where the age of a person who is sought to be appointed, may be a relevant consideration to assess his suitability, even in absence of a statutory rule like Rule 16-A, the principle of estoppel would apply and the authorities concerned would be justified in declining to alter the date of birth. If such a decision is challenged, the Court also ought not grant any relief even if it is shown that the date of birth, as originally recorded, was incorrect because the candidate concerned had represented a different date of birth to be taken into consideration obviously with a view that the same would be to his advantage. 13. The aforesaid judgment cited by learned C.G.C is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case in hand, the representations for correction in the date of birth recorded in the school register were repeatedly made by the petitioner and his father before the school authorities, however, the same were not considered. Even a writ petition was filed seeking correction in date of birth of the petitioner and the same was disposed of directing the Principal of the said school to dispose of his representation for correction of his age within two months. However, the Principal did not respond to the said representation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt case being M.J.C. No. 104/2001 and pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court, he filed Title Suit No. 125 of 2003 seeking declaration that his date of birth was 29.12.1976. During pendency of the said suit, the petitioner filled up the application form of Civil Services Examination and since the matter regarding correction in date of birth was sub-judice before the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 125 of 2003, he entered his date of birth in the application form as 06.12.1975 which was recorded in his school certificate. Subsequently, the said suit was decreed in his favour by a competent Civil Court declaring his date of birth as 29.12.1976 after considering rival claims of the parties on merit including the Union of India and the said declaration was also affirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, the said judgement/decree attained finality as no further appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court passed in Title Appeal No. 54 of 2010. 14. Thus, this Court is of the view that the respondents are bound by the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 125 of 2003 as well as in Title Appeal No. 54 of 2010. 14. Thus, this Court is of the view that the respondents are bound by the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 125 of 2003 as well as in Title Appeal No. 54 of 2010. So far as the contention of the respondents to the effect that the petitioner himself had mentioned his date of birth in the examination form as 06.12.1975, I find that the petitioner has given reasonable justification for the same as by that time, the declaratory suit was still pending and thus he had no option but to mention the date of birth as was mentioned in his school record. The Trial Court observed in the judgment dated 09.10.2009 that as per the date of birth of Manoj Pradhan-the elder brother of the petitioner entered in his Matriculation Certificate (marked as Ext.-3), his date of birth was 08.12.1975 and if the date of birth of the plaintiff was assumed to be 06.12.1975, he would be two days older than his elder brother, which was quite impossible. Having observed so, the Trial Court held that the petitioner’s date of birth as 06.12.1975 had inadvertently been recorded in the school record. 15. The plea of various sub-rules of Rule 16-A of the Rules, 1958 was available with the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India as it was one of the contesting respondents in Title Suit No. 125/2003 and the petitioner had entered in Indian Police Service in the year 2003 during pendency of the said suit. However, the respondent-Union of India failed to avail the said opportunity. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India also filed Title Appeal No. 54/2010, but the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2015. Hence, the Union of India being the judgment debtor now cannot refuse to correct the petitioner’s date of birth by referring the provisions of Rule 16-A of the Act, 1958 at this stage. 16. In the case of Satyawati Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 491 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. It is really agonising to learn that the appellant-decree-holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of her success even today i.e. in 2013 though the appellant-plaintiff had finally succeeded in January 1996. 16. In the case of Satyawati Vs. Rajinder Singh & Anr. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 491 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. It is really agonising to learn that the appellant-decree-holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of her success even today i.e. in 2013 though the appellant-plaintiff had finally succeeded in January 1996. As stated hereinabove, the Privy Council in [General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput Sing, (1871-72) 14 MIA 605 : 20 ER 912] had observed that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. Even in 1925, while quoting the aforestated judgment of the Privy Council in Kuer Jang Bahadur v. Bank of Upper India Ltd. [AIR 1925 Oudh 448 (PC)] the Court was constrained to observe that: (AIR p. 448) “Courts in India have to be careful to see that the process of the Court and the law of procedure are not abused by judgment-debtors in such a way as to make courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors, who have obtained decrees in accordance with their rights.” 16. As stated by us hereinabove, the position has not been improved till today. We strongly feel that there should not be unreasonable delay in execution of a decree because if the decree-holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of his success by getting the decree executed, the entire effort of successful litigant would be in vain.” 17. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the respondent-Union of India cannot deny the petitioner’s request to correct his date of birth as 29.12.1976 instead of 06.12.1975 in his service record particularly when a competent Court of civil jurisdiction has passed a declaratory decree in his favour to the effect that his correct date of birth is 29.12.1976 and the same has been contested on merit by none other but the Union of India. 18. 18. Accordingly, the competent authority of the respondent-Union of India i.e. the respondent No.2 is directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in his service record within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in terms with the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2009 & 30.10.2009 respectively passed in Title Suit No. 125/2003, affirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2015 passed in Title Appeal No. 54 of 2010. 19. The present writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.