S.D Bajaj, J.:— Plaintiff-appellant Chamba Singh initially joined the army as sepoy on December 1, 1944 when he was 17-½ years of age. He was discharged from army on October 27, 1961. It was stated in the discharge certificate that his age on October 27, 1961 was 34 years and 146 days. The plaintiff-appellant then joined as Sepoy in the Defence Security Corps from February 5, 1963 to April 11, 1965. In the discharge certificate through the mistaken calculation, the date of birth of the plaintiff-appellant was given out to be June 1, 1924 instead of June 1, 1927. On the basis of it, the vicious mistake also persisted while entering the date of birth of plaintiff-appellant in the service book prepared by Education Department of Punjab State when he joined them as Lascar on December 2, 1965. Ultimately taking June 1, 1924 as his correct date of birth, defendant-respondents retired plaintiff-appellant from service on September 30, 1982. Alleging that June 1, 1927 and not June 1, 1924 was his correct date of birth plaintiff-appellant filed before the learned trial Court civil suit No. 17 on January 10, 1983 for declaration to the effect that the impugned order dated September 30, 1982 vide which the defendants relieved the plaintiff from the service is illegal, void etc. and he is entitled to get all the benefits of service with effect from October 1, 1982 as if he had not been illegally retired. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court on October 12, 1984. In appeal learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, reversed the decision of the learned trial court and vide its assailed judgment dated January 29, 1986 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant before the learned trial court. Hence Regular Second Appeal No. 1384 of 1986.
2. The only question for determination in this case is if the correct date of birth of the plaintiff-appellant is June 1, 1927 and if so on account of mistake in regard to correct date of birth of plaintiff-appellant having crept in the official records, was plaintiff appellant prematurely retired by defendant-respondent on September 30, 1982 instead of May 31, 1985 (afternoon) and is consequently entitled to the relief granted to him by the learned trial court which was incorrectly denied to him by the learned court of first appeal.
3. Creeping of incongruous error in the discharge slip has been conceded by the concerned authorities in the Defence Security Corps vide their letter Exhibit P.W 3.A. In it, it is clearly stated that the correct date of birth of plaintiff-appellant as per entries in the official records is June 1, 1927 and not June 1, 1924 and that it was through a mistake in calculation that incorrect date June 1, 1924 was initially entered in the discharge slip Exhibit P. 4 and thereafter on its basis in the service book copy Exhibit P. 1 prepared by defendant-respondent No. 3. It was on detection of this mistake obtaining in the service record of plaintiff-appellant that defendant respondent No. 3 thought of getting it corrected and obtained the consent of plaintiff-appellant vide letter Exhibit P. 6 for doing so. Respondent No. 2 acting on behalf of respondent No. 1, however, declined the proposal made to him by defendant-respondent No. 3 vide his letter No. 355-19/6-81 NCC(i) dated September 2k, 1982 which was received by defendant respondent No. 3 on September 30, 1982 and it was on the basis of this letter that plaintiff-appellant was retired on superannuation with effect from September 30, 1982 itself vide letter Exhibit P. 2.
4. The mistake having been admitted, plaintiff-appellant would have attained the age of superannuation on May 31, 1982 (afternoon) and was, therefore, wrongly retired by defendant-respondents from service on September 30, 1982.
5. While deciding the case of Hira Lal v. Union of India, 1982 (2) Services Law Reporter 319 Central Administrative Tribunal functioning at Delhi negatived all the arguments advanced by learned court of first appeal in its assailed judgment of January 29, 1986 for denying the relief to plaintiff-appellant and held that plaintiff-appellant is entitled to prove that the entry of date of birth in the service record is not correct (a reasonable restriction may not be imposed as regards the period of limitation within which the appellant has made the request for its correction). In the present case, however, there was no request from the plaintiff-appellant. The departmental authorities had themselves detected the mistake and were trying to have it corrected through inter se correspondence; after obtaining the consent of plaintiff-appellant in regard to their doing so. Learned court of first appeal, therefore, erred in reversing the decision of the learned trial court. Its own decision in turn calls for reversal by this Court on this score alone.
6. It was held in Darbara Singh v. Punjab State, 1967 Current Law Journal 70 that the question of date of birth or of a person's age is a matter pertaining to his civil rights for which declaration sought for by the plaintiff-appellant in civil suit 17 filed on January 10, 1983 is the only efficacious remedy. Again in Brigadier Prithvi Raj v. Union of India, 1986 (1) Services Law Reporter 754 it has been held that correct date of birth gives a right to Government servant to continue in service till the age of superannuation provided the employee is otherwise fit to continue. In this view of the matter, the appeal is accepted, assailed judgment and decree passed by the learned court of first appeal on January 29, 1986 are both reversed and the Suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant before the learned trial court is decreed with costs throughout.
7. Appeal allowed.