Incidentally, on January 16, he had moved the Supreme Court against the government's decision to treat May 10, 1950 as his date of birth and not May 10, 1951 as claimed by him.
The dispute occurred because of his official records showing two sets of dates. He had petitioned the government twice over the issue but both the times, his pleas were rejected.
If 1951 was treated as his year of birth, he would have got an extension of 10 months beyond May 31, last year, when he actually retired.
