AMITAVA ROY, J. - (1.) IN assailment is the judgment and order dated 28.6.2013 rendered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in O.A.No.249/2013 interfering with the rejection of the respondent-applicant's prayer for alteration of his date of birth from 12.6.1953 to 12.6.1958 and directing the petitioners to make necessary corrections therein and allowing all consequential benefits to him on the basis thereof.
(2.) WE have heard Mr.Kamal Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vijay Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent. The abridged version of the pleaded facts is that the respondent-applicant had entered services under the petitioners initially as a casual labour w.e.f. 3.3.1978, whereafter, he joined as regular Group-D employee on 8.5.1979. He had passed the 8th Class in 1973-74. According to him, though the documents furnished by him at the time of his induction as regular employee clearly demonstrated his date of birth to be 12.6.1958, it was wrongly recorded as 12.6.1953. The entry was not made by him in his hand and he was only required to put his signature on the service book. He was unware of this mistake and it was only in the year 2011 when he was provided with the copy of the service record that he came to learn to his shock and surprise that his date of birth had been wrongly recorded as 12.6.1953 in lieu of 12.6.1958. According to the respondent-applicant, at the time of his entry as regular employee, the documents inter-alia furnished by him included Transfer Certificate (TC) issued by the School on 11.7.1974, Certificate issued by the Industrial Training Institute (ITI) on completion of his training in the trade of Welder, Identity Card of the Diesel Shed, PAN Card and Driving License, which all unmistakably attested his date of birth to be 12.6.1958. He submitted a representation for correction of his date of birth and the same having been rejected, he approached the learned Tribunal with O.A.No.79/2013, which was decided on 21.5.2013 with the following operative directions:- "After considering all the relevant facts and the circumstances of the case we allow this application and while quashing the Annex.A/1 passed by the competent authority and direct the competent Railway authorities to decide the representation of the applicant afresh within a month from the date of this order in accordance with the observations made in this judgment after considering all the relevant record and even after considering the recommendation letter (Annex.A/12). Further, respondents are directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in the light of various judgments referred in the order. There shall be no order as to costs."
(3.) AS the above text would reveal, thereby the learned Tribunal interfered with the rejection of his representation and directed a fresh consideration thereof by the concerned Railway authorities taking into account all relevant records and the recommendation made by the Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Jodhpur in favour of the correction of his date of birth as sought for. The respondent-applicant accordingly submitted a representation on 5.6.2013 and the petitioner no.3 by his letter dated 14.6.2013 conveyed to him the decision of the General Manager (Personnel), North Western Railway, Jaipur (petitioner no.2) rejecting his request for change of date of birth having been made at the fag end of his service career. He thus returned to the learned Tribunal for redress.;