(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred on behalf of the State of Bihar against the order dated 15 -9 -1999 in C.W.J.C. No. 9782 of 1998, whereby the writ petition was allowed with a direction to treat the date of birth of the respondent (writ petitioner) as 31st December, 1940.
(2.) IN this case, there is a delay in filing the appeal, therefore, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condonation of the delay. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the Petition and contended that the appellants are required to show sufficient and good cause for condonation of each day's delay, failing which the appeal is fit to be dismissed as time, barred. In support of the contention, learned Counsel also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, through its Chairman and Ors. v. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Advocate and Anr. 1999(1) P.L. J.R. 60 and yet another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. : 2002(143)ELT249(SC) .
(3.) NOW turning to the merit of the case as would appear that the respondent was initially appointed as matriculate constable on 11th January, 1959 and later promoted up to the rank of Sub -Inspector of Police. The year of birth of respondent in the service book was recorded as 1940, hence on completing the service tenure he superannuated with effect from 1st July, 1998. On getting the letter of superannuation the respondent, however, made a representation for the correction of date of birth. In the representation, it was alleged that the respondent had signed the service book in good faith and in fact he had no knowledge prior to communication of the letter of retirement, regarding the entry about the year of birth in the service book. The representation of respondent was rejected on the ground that he had full knowledge about the year of birth as recorded in the service and no attempt or objection was ever made during whole of the service tenure for correction.