Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
C.K. Desai vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 August, 1999
JUDGMENT A.S. Sanghavi, Member (J)
1. The applicant Mr. C.K. Desai, an IAS officer serving with the State of Gujarat has moved this application for a declaration that the decision of the respondent No. I, Union of India, td change the date of birth of the applicant, adversely affecting the applicant, i.e. from 1.6.41 to 6.4.40, without giving any opportunity of being heard is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and has prayed that the same be quashed and set aside and his date of birth be recorded as 1.6.41. The applicant had joined the service with the State of Gujarat as Mamlatdar in the Revenue Department in the year 1965 and was thereafter promoted as Deputy Collector and subsequently in the year 1991 was promoted with IAS nomination and posted as Deputy Secretary in the Revenue Department. His school leaving certificate showed his date of birth as 6.4.40 and the same was recorded in his service record when he joined service in the year 1965. According to the applicant his correct date of birth is 1.6.41 and since his birth date was correctly recorded in the service record, he had sent a representation to the State Government in the year 1966 and again thereafter in the year 1974. The applicant has averred in para-5 of his application that the mistake in recording the date of birth of the applicant was duly corrected by the State Government and the same was shown as 1.6.41. The respondent No. 2 the State Government had published the seniority list vide notification dated 15.4.87 and therein also his date of birth was shown as 1.6.41. However, the gradation list of IAS cadre of State of Gujarat as on 1.1.96 published by the respondent No. 2. showed the date of birth of the applicant as that of 6.4.40. The applicant having come to know that his date of birth was wrongly shown in the gradation list of the IAS officers, made representation to the resondents enclosing the extract from the Birth and Death Register of the Village Panchayat and other documents with the request to correct the birth date as per the record of the State Government. The respondents, have, however, not responded to the request of the applicant and therefore, this O.A. is filed by the applicant. It is contended by the applicant that his date of birth has been changed by the Government behind his back without giving any opportunity of being heard. The decision to change his date of birth was unilaterally taken by the respondent No. 2. and therefore, the decision being arbitrary, unjust and illegal, requires to be set aside.
2. The respondents; have in their reply denied the say of the applicant that his date of birth was corrected from 6.4.40 to 1.6.41. Relying on the service record of the applicant, they have contended that when the applicant was recruited as Mamlatdar in the year 1965, he himself had given his birth date as 6.4.40 being the same as shown in his matriculation certificate. They have also contended that the representation of the applicant to change his date of birth was rejected vide the order dated 1.10.82 and the applicant was informed about the same vide the memo dated 18.12.82. It is also contended by the respondents that the birth date of the applicant shown in the gradation list of the Mamlatdar and Gujarat Civil Services officers as that of 6.4.40, was shown by mistake and such notification of the birth date in the gradation list does not give the applicant any right of getting his date of birth corrected. They have also denied that subsequently the date of birth of the applicant was altered unilaterally and was shown as 6.4.40 instead of 1.6.41. They have further contended that there was no question of changing the date of birth of the applicant as all along the date of birth of the applicant was shown as 6.4.40 in the service record of the applicant. Since the date of birth of the applicant was never changed in the service record, the question of alteration of date of birth of the applicant unitarily or arbitrarily or without giving any opportunity to the applicant of being heard does not arise at all. It is however, contended by the respondents that in the IAS gradation list for the years 1994 to 1997 the date of birth of the applicant was shown as 6.4.40 and the applicant inspite of knowing full well that his date of birth was shown as 6.4.40 has not taken any steps till the fag end of his service and therefore now he cannot be heard to say that his date of birth was wrongly shown in the service record and cannot be given any relief prayed for.
3. The applicnat alongwith his application had moved for interim relief seeking the directions to restrain the respondents from acting as per the date of birth of 06.04.40 and praying that the resondents be directed to continue him in service as per the date of birth as of 1.6.41. The question of grant of interim relief was heard by this Bench and by order dated 30.4.98, the prayer of the applicant to continue him in service on the basis of the date of birth of 1.6.41 was rejected. However, the respondent No. 1 by the same order was directed to conduct an inquiry in the circumstances of the case and arrive at adecision expeditiously and to inform the same to the applicant in reply to his representations dated 24.10.97 and 24.3.98 keeping in view the letter of the State Government dated 18.2.74.
4. Pursuant to the above directions of this Tribunal, an inquiry was conducted by the Ministry Department of Personnel and Training in the case of the applicant and by his speaking order dated 18.6.98, Mr. A.K. Sarkar, Director, has rejected the request of the applicant for the change of his date of birth. In his order, the learned Director has recorded the findings that the State of Gujarat has never changed the date of birth of the applicant from 6.4.40 to 1.6.41 and that the applicant has not been able to explain the reasons as to why he had kept quiet till 1982. Referring to the birth date shown in the gradation list of the Mamlatdar of the State of Gujarat, the learned Director has observed that the particulars given in such seniority list cannot be relied upon for the determination of the date of birth because even in the IAS Civil list it is clearly stated that the civil list does not purport to be an authentic statement in respect of the particulars given in the civil list and in case of any doubt or dispute, the correct information may be obtained from the original records like service book and other relevant documents. Referring to Rule 16 A(4) of the AIS(S) (DCRB) Rules, he has observed that once the date of birth was accepted by the Central Government, it cannot be open to any alteration except where it is pointed out that a bonafide clerical mistake was committed in accepting the date of birth. He has furhter observed that the date of birth of the applicant, as recorded in the service book or other similar document maintained by the State of Gujarat was as 6.4.40 and the same had been accepted as the date of birth as per the provision of Rule 16 (a) (ii) and since there was no clerical mistake in accepting the date of birth under Rule
(iii), the request of the applicant for change of date of birth cannot be accepted.
5. We have heard the learned advocates of both the parties and considered their written submissions also Mr. Pathak, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that immediately after his recruitment as Mamlatdar under the State of Gujarat service the applicant has represented for the correction of his date of birth in the year 1966 and along with his representation had annexed copies of the extract of the village Birth and Death Register, domicile certificate etc. He has maintained that the date of birth of the applicant was thereupon corrected by the State Government and the same was reflected in the seniority list published by the Revenue Department. According to the learned advocate Mr. Pathak, the first seniority list of the Mamlatdar was published by the State Government on dated 5.1.78 and in that seniority list, the date of birth of the applicant Mr. C.K. Desai was shown as 1.6.41. Thereafter again in the seniority list published on 3.4.86, the date of birth of the applicant was shown as 1.6.41 and therefore, the applicant had assumed that his representation was accepted and the date of birth was corrected to 1.6.41. Mr. Pathak has also submitted that no reply to the representation of the applicant was given by the State Government and that the contention of the respondents that the representation was rejected by the State Government is false. He has submitted that the applicant had not received any communication from the State Government informing him about the rejection of the representation and therefore, the applicant assumed that his date of birth was corrected and did not take any further steps in this regard till he came to know from the gradation list of the IAS officers in the year 1996 that his date of birth was shown as 6.4.40. He therefore immediately represented to the Central Government as well as the State Government for the correction of his date of birth. Relying on the extract of the Birth and Death register of the Village Mahuva, he has submitted that the correct date of birth of the applicant is 6.4.40 and as per the ciruclar of the State Government dated 18.2.74, the date of birth as recorded in the Birth and Death Register should be accepted as correct and final for all purposes including admission into the Government Service. Since the correct date of birth of the applicant was available on record, it was incumbent on the part of the State Government as well as on the Central Government to correct the date of birth of the applicant as 6.4.40. He has alleged that the administration to hide their negligence has not cared to correct the date of birth of the applicant and without giving any opportunity of being heard, the date of birth of the applicant was changed from 1.6.41 to 6.4.40. In support of his submission, Mr. Pathak has relied upon the decisions in the case of Diptidevi Dhirajlal Patel v. The State of Gujarat, reported in 25 G.L.T. 150 and Dakshaben J. Patel v. Director of Education, reported in 28 G.L.T. 244. In both the cases, though they are reported in G.L.T., it is held that the entry in the Birth and Death Register be accepted for showing the correct date of birth. In the case of S.K. Simpi v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999 (2) G.L.H. 126, also relied upon by Mr. Pathak, the date of birth of the petitioner was allowed to be altered on the ground that there was no provision to change the date of birth under the administrative control of Government till 18.2.74 and it was held that in the facts and circumstances, the delay on the part of the petitioner was not fatal for the change of his date of birth.
6. Mr. C.C. Bhalja, learned advocate appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3. on the other hand has submitted that the applicant has come with a complete false case of his birth date having been changed by the State Government and that subsequently without informing him or giving him any opportunity of being heard, the same having been changed to 6.4.40. Relying on the particulars of Probationary Deputy Collector/Mamlatdar given by the applicant at the time of induction in the service, Mr. Bhalja has submitted that as far back as 27.10.65 the applicant in his own hand writing has given his date of birth as 6.4.40 and thereafter at no point of time this date of birth recorded in the service book of the applicant is changed. He has denied that the applicant has made any representation in the year 1966 and 1974 for correction of his date of birth and has submitted that the representation which was made by the applicant for the correction of his date of birth in the year 1982 was considered by the State Government and the same was rejected vide order dated 18.11.82. He has emphasized that this was not only notified but also communicated to the applicant and the applicant was very much aware of the fact that his representation was rejected. He has also submitted that even after rejection of the representation, the applicant had not taken any steps and had not challenged that order by way of appeal or revision. He has pointed out that till the year 1997, i.e. the first representation made by the applicant, the applicant had not taken any steps to get his date of birth changed in his service record and has woken up from his deep slumber only when his date of retirement was nearing. Referring to the gradation lists of the IAS officers for the years 1994, 1995, 1996, he has argued that inspite of the date, of birth of the applicant being shown as 6.4.40 in these gradation lists, the applicant had not taken any steps to get his date of birth corrected. These gradation lists themselves falsified the claim of the applicant that his dateof birth was corrected by the State Government and subsequently the State Government had changed his date of birth. He has also relied upon the inquiry report dated 18.6.98 of the Director of the Department of Personnel and Training, who had given findings pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal that there are no grounds for acceding to the request of the applicant for change of the birth date of the applicant. Relying upon the decision in the, case of Union of India v. Ram Suia Sharma, (1996) 7 SCC 421 as well as the Commmissioner of Police, Bombay v. Bhagwan L. Lahane, (1997) 1 SCC 247 he has submitted that when the birth date of the applicant is recorded not due to negligence of some clerk or where there is no clerical error in recording the date of birth and there is a delay in applying for correction of the date of birth, the same cannot be permitted to be rectified. He has urged that the application being barred by delay and latches may be rejected.
7. It is undeniable position from the pleadings as well as the documents produced by the parties on record that when the applicant joined the services of the State Government in the year 1965 as Mamlatdar in the Revenue Department, he had given his date of birth as 6.4.40. This date of birth was recorded in his matriculation certificate and on the basis of the same he had given his date of birth at the time of joining the service. Though it is contended by him that in the year 1954, he had obtained the certificate of his birth from Mahuva village Panchayat and the same showed the date of birth as 1.6.41, no explanation is forthcoming from the applicant as to why his matriculation certificate showed his date of birth as 6.4.40 and also as to why he had not taken any steps to correct his matriculation certificate. Furthermore the applicant has come with a definite case before this Tribunal that after he joined the services as Mamlatdar, he had made representation for correction of his date of birth in the year 1966 and 1974 and that ultimately his date of birth, was corrected by the State Government in the year 1987. According to him after this date of birth was corrected in 1987, his date of birth was shown as 1.6.41, and the State Government or the concerned officers without giving him any opportunity of being heard had changed the same to 6.4.40 and the same was even communicated to the Central Government when he was nominated for IAS. This has resulted into the gradation lists of the IAS showing his date of birth as 6.4.40.
8. The State Government on the other hand has flatly denied having corrected the date of birth of the applicant at any time and has pointed out that on the contrary in the year 1982, the request of the applicant for change of his date of birth was rejected and the same was communicated to him also. The applicant has denied having received any communication from the State Government, but when we consider the documents produced on record, it becomes quite evident that the applicant had the knowledge of the rejection of his representation and that he has deliberately advanced a false case of the State Government correcting his date of birth to 1.6.41 and thereafter again changing to dated 6.4.40. It appears that this case is advanced by the applicant to take the advantage of the mistake committed by the State Government in notifying the birth date of the applicant in the gradation lists of the Mamlatdar published in the year 1987 and 1986.
9. So far as the contention of the applicant that he had sent a representation for the change of his date of birth in 1966 and 1974 is concerned, there is no iota of evidence to substantiate the same. He has not produced the copies of those representations alongwith his application. In his rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has maintained that in the year 1987 his birth date was corrected by the State Government but has not produced any evidence showing that the State Government has agreed to correct his date of birth. He has merely relied upon the gradation lists of the Mamlatdar in support of his say that the same was corrected in the year 1987. Further he has not been able to adduce any official communication received by him in this regard. So far as the State Government is concerned, they had produced the copy of the order dated 18.11.82 rejecting the representation of the applicant dated 1.10.82 for the correction of his birth date. This order itself suggests that the applicant had represented for the correction of his date of birth on dated 1.2.82 and the same was rejected by the Revenue Department of the Government. This letter also bears the seal of issued on dated 18.11.82 and it cannot be denied that such order was not passed by the State Government. The denial of the applicant that he had no knowledge of this letter is falsified by his own representation dated 24.10.97. This appears to be the first representation made by the applicant, after his representation dated 1.10.82 was rejected and the contents thereof make interesting reading. This representation Annexure A/4 addressed to the Under Secretary, General Administration Department. Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, inter alia recites as under:--
"Dear Sir, I had joined the Govt. of Gujarat services as Mamlatdar on 18.6.65 A. G. Rajkot used to maintain our service records in those days. The date of birth in the A.G, record was entered as 6.4.40. My correct date of birth being 1.6.41 based on the registration of birth in the village record and the domicile and age certificate as given by the Taluka Magistrate, Mahuva, Dist Surat (S. Gujarat) Thus I had taken up the matter for correction with the A.G. Rajkot who had replied me vide their correspondent No. GA. 3/NG/18/1556 dt. 16.5.74 (copy enclosed) that I may take up the matter with the Govt. of Gujarat. I had made oral representation to Revenue Department, but I was given discouraging reply and on account of frequent transfers, heavy work load and high responsibilities that have been carrying, I regret, I could not attend the matter then.".....
It is interesting that this representation does not refer to his so-called representations of 1966 or 1974 but on the contrary shows that he had made representation to the Revenue Department indicating that he had the knowledge of his representation having been turned down in the year 1982 and till the date of his representation i.e. 24.10.97 he had not taken any steps to get his date of birth altered in his service book. It is therefore quite obvious that when he reiterates even in his rejoinder affidavit that his date of birth was changed to 1.6.41 in the year 1987 by the State Government, he is not stating the truth. It is also quite apparent that this alteration in the date of birth in the year 1987 is advanced by the applicant only with a view to substantiate or to back up his case has being not given any opportunity of hearing by the State Government in rechanging his date of birth to 6.4.40. It is pertinent to note that even in his subsequent representation dated 24.3.88. Annexure A/4, also he does not speak of any such change of birth date by the State Government in the year 1987 and thereafter the State Government again changing the date of birth without giving him any opportunity of being heard to 6.4.40. Itisquite obvious that the change of the date of birth in the year 1987 as prayed by the applicant is only to take advantage of gradation list entry and on advice received subsequently at the time of filing of the O.A. In fact there is no iota on evidence or record to suggest that the State Government at any time corrected the date of birth of the applicant from 6.4.40 to 1.6.41 in the official record. The submission of Mr. Pathak, the learned advocate for the applicant that because the date of birth of the applicant in the gradation lists of Mamlatdar published by the State Government was shwon as 1.6.41, the applicant had assumed that the date of his birth was corrected by the State Government cannot be accepted in view of the representation dated 24.10.97 of the applicant. Furthermore as submitted by Mr. Bhalja the gradation lists' particulars are generally obtained from employees or bead of department at the time of preparation of the same and hence no reliance can be placed on the entries of gradation list. The representation dated 24.10.97 clearly indicates that the applicant knew all along that his date of birth was never changed by the State Government and inspite of his knowledge, the applicant has advanced a false case of the State Government changing his date of birth to 1.6.41 in the year 1987 and thereafter again re-changing the same to 6.4.40. This is clearly done to raise the contention of the violation of principle of natural justice. We find that the attempt is a futile one and there is absolutely no truth in the allegation that the State Government had corrected his date of birth in the year 1987 and thereafter again changed the same to 6.4.40.
10. Now so far as the correction of the date of birth is concerned, it cannot be denied that the extract from the village registers of Mahuva village shows the date of birth of the applicant as 1.6.41 and that the State Government had issued a circular in the year 1974 to the effect that in the event of any change in birth date recorded in the school leaving certificate, matriculation certificate, secondary school certificate examination or the extract from the Birth and Death registers of the local bodies or Municipalities etc., the birth date as recorded in the Extracts of Birth and Death Register should be accepted as correct and final for all purposes including admission into government service. This circular, however, will have to be viewed in the line of the relevant rules for the correction of the birth date. Since the applicant was in the service of Gujarat State before his nomination to the IAS, he was governed by the Bombay Civil Services Rules. Rule 171 of B.C.S.R. inter alia provides as under; --
"When once an entry of death or birth has been made in the service book, no alteration of the entry should after wards be allowed, unless it is shown that the entry was due to want of care on the part of the some person other than the individual in question or is an obvious clerical error. Request made for alteration of the date of birth should not be entertained after the preparation of the service book of the government servant concerned and in any event not after the completion of the probation period or 5 years continuous service whichever is earlier. In the case where there is no probation period, such request should not be entertained after the completion of 5 years continuous serivce. The date of birth may however, be permitted to be altered at a later stage if the government is satisfied that a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed and that it should be rectified. Officers of a rank not lower than the Principal District Officer in the Department concerned may correct errors in the service book which are obviously clerical."
11. This rule, therefore, clearly provides that the correction in the date of birth of a government servant can be made only when the entry of the birth date was made on account of clerical error by some one other than the Government servant himself and that the request for such alteration of date of birth should be made within 5 years of the induction in the service or after the completion of the probation period. The request made thereafter should not be considered but even if such a request is made at a later stage than the employees concerned is required to satisfy the government that a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed. None of the ingredients mentioned in this rule are, therefore, satisfied in the instant case. It is not the case of the applicant that due to some clerical mistake on the part of the clerk of the A.G. or Revenue Department, his date of birth was not correctly shown in the service book. Furthermore he has not represented for the correction of his date of birth within 5 years of his joining the service and even thereafter, he has not been able to satisfy the State Government that the mistake in recordig the birth date in his service book is committed by some clerk and this is a bonafide mistake. On the contrary, the order dated 18.11.82, of the Revenue Department of the State Government indicates that his representation for the correction of his date of birth was not accepted by the Government and the same was rejected.
12. The Government Circular dated 18.2.74 on which the reliance was placed by the learned advocate Mr. Pathak clearly has no application to the facts of the instant case as the same will be applied only when the ingredients of Rule 171 are satisfied. This circular cannot and does not over rule the statutory rule and therefore also the applicant is not entitled to any benefits of this circular.
13. Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has relied upon the decision in the case of S.K. Simpy v. State of Gujarat, (supra) where relying on the circular dated 18.2.74, the High Court has permitted correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. In that case, the petitioner had joined the service in the year 1959 and his date of birth was mentioned as 4.3.36 on the basis of the school leaving certificate. The petitioner had thereafter represented for correction of his date of birth on dated 6.7.90 stating that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the school leaving certificate and that his correct date of birth was 14.5.38 as shown in the Birth Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat. The learned High Court Judge has permitted the correction of the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of the circular dated 18.2.74 of the Government of Gujarat holding that once the Government has taken such a decision and when the petitioner has invited the attention of the Government to the extract of Birth and Death Register, the entry therein cannot be over ruled by the concerned respondents. It appears that the attention of the High Court was not drawn to the statutory Rule 171 of the BCSR and also to the various decisions of the Supreme Court. The Govenrment Circular cannot over rule the statutory rules and when the rule itself prohibits the entry of the date of birth in the service record, unless that entry is made due to the some clerical mistake. Merely because the government circular recognises the date of birth of a government servant stated in the extract of the Birth and Death Register of Gram Panchayat or Municipalities as the correct date of birth adopted, the same cannot be considered to permit the employee to get his date of birth corrected at any time.
14. In case of Union of India v. Harnam Singh, 1993 (2) SCC 162, the Supreme Court has laid down as under:--
"A Government servant, after entry into service acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its ower regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after followings the procedure prescribed therein. The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is of course, not precluded from making a request alter on for correcting his age. It is open to acivil servant to claim correction of his age. 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. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of latches or stale claims, is generally applied by the Courts and Tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the government to fix a time-limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a government servant can be entertained. A government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time so fixed, therefore, cannot claim as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the Courts or Tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. Unless altered his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age."
15. Thereafter again in the case of Union of India v. Kantilal Hematram Pandya, reported in 1995(2) GLR 1950, the Supreme Court relying on the Harnam Singh 's case has laid down that the stale claims and belated applications for alteration of the date of birth recorded in tbe service book at the time of initial entry made after unexplained and inordinate delay, on the eve of retirement, need to be scrutinised carefully and interference made sparingly and with circumspection. The approach has to be cautious and not casual."
16. Thereafter in the case of Union of India v. Ram Suia Sharma reported in (1996) 7 SCC 421, the Supreme Court has laid down that aCourt or Tribunal at the belated stage can not entertain a claim for the correction of the birth date duly entered in the service records. Thereafter in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay, v. Bhagwan V. Lahane, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 247, the Supreme Court has again reiterated that the claim of the correction of the birth date at belated stage should be rejected and it was also observed that the employee seeking the correction must show that the recorded date of birth was made due to negligence of some other person or that the same was an obvious clerical error, where the employee fails to do so, the relief should not be granted by the administrative tribunal.
17. It appears that these decisions of the Supreme Court were not brought to the notice of the learned High Court Judge in the case of S. K. Simpi (supra) and without considering the effect of Rule 171 of B.C.S.R. the learned High Court Judge has allowed the petition for the correction of the date of birth. The decision of the High Court therefore cannot be applied in the instant case.
18. So far as the instant case is concerned, the above referred decisions of the Supreme Court apply with full force and since it is not the case of the applicant that on account of some clerical mistake or due to negligence of some other person than himself his date of brith was incorrectly recorded in his service book, his prayer for correction of the dale of birth at this belated stage cannot be entertained. Even the Rule 16(a) of the AIS (DCRB) Rules prohibits the correction of the date of birth when the same had not been entered due to some clerical mistake. It is a settled position now that once the date of birth entered in the service record and accepted it cannot be changed after a long lapse of time. The applicant has not only been not able to show that the date of birth was entered into his service book by some clerical mistake but also has not been able to show that he had moved the authorities for the correction of date of birth within the reasonable period. It appears from the record that the first attempt for the correction of the date of birth was made by the applicant only in the year 1982 and obviously without any appeal filed, he had though it fit not to take further action in the matter. He had neither filed any appeal or revision nor moved the Court or Tribunal for the correction of his date of birth. He had suddenly woken up from his deep slumber only when he found that the dale of retirement was nearing and sent a representation for the first time in the year 1997. This application moved in the year 1'998 also cannot be entertained and allowed as the same has been moved at a belated stage.
19. For the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in this O.A. and are of the opinion ihat the same deserves to be rejected. In the conclusion, therefore, the O.A. is rejected with no ordered as to costs.