4 The record of the case indicates that there are at least two documents generated around the time the first Respondent registered himself with BDLB for employment as 'mazdoor'. There is a registration form, which is signed by the first Respondent, which shows his date of birth as “17-2-42”. True, there is some overwriting in the year “42”, but in the column of age, the figure is clearly shown as “37 years” (which is in accordance with the date of birth of 17-2-42). The registration from was signed on 1 April 1979. The second document is the medical registration card of the employee, which also shows the first Respondent's date of birth as “17.2.42”. As against this record, what the first Respondent has relied on before the CGIT, is the statement made in the employer's certificate issued by the Assistant Administrative Officer of the Petitioner to LIC, mentioning the retirement age “in the year 2012”. This document is neither here or there. It is not the first Respondent's case that as of the date of this document, namely, 22.05.1990, the Petitioner had applied for correction of his date of birth to 17.02.1952, so as to make 2012 his retirement year. In fact, it appears from the record that after getting this certificate, which was obviously an error on the part of the Petitioner, the first Respondent was encouraged to apply for change of date of birth in the record of the Petitioner. Apart from this document, what is produced before the Court is a revenue extract, namely, Village Extract No.14, which shows the date of birth of the first Respondent as 17.02.1952. In this record, the name of the record holder is shown as “Tukaram Ramu Dadu Katkar”. Merely, on the basis of this document, which does not in any way amount to any irrefutable proof of the date of birth applied for, the
