AT:K (ii-tt t,- HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5094 of 2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Versus 1) 2) 3) 4) Mohar Sai, S/o. Late Shn Samal aged about 52 years, occupation, service (Loader) R/o. Chowki Dafai Korea Collery, Tehsil - Baikuntpur, Dist. Korea, CG. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., through Managing Director, Seepat Road, Biiaspur, CG. General Manager, Chirmiri Area, District Korea,CG. Sub Area Manager, Rani Atari Project Chirmiri Area District Korea, CG. The Mines Superintendents Rani Atari Project Chirmiri Area, Dist. Korea, CG. (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: .Shri A.K. Pandey, counse! for the petitioner. Shri RaviRanjan Sinha, counsei for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on 5th July, 2007) With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage itself. The petitioner was appointed as Loader on 1-1-1979. In his service book i.e., Porm -B (See Rule 48, 61, 77 and 77 A (2) the date of birth recorded as per information submitted by the petitioner was 30-09-1946. Accordingly, the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service with effectfrom 1-10-2006. - 2-- 9 2) At the fag end of the service, the petitioner made an application on 19-10-20re, producing a Primary School Certificate (Annexure P/1), issued on 2-9-1996, wherein his date of birth was reeorded as 10-4-1954. &'% -^' 3) The respondents in their return dated 20-2-2007 have submitted that the application dated 19.10.2005 was made at the fag end of the service. There is no discrepancy or ambiguity in the recorded date of birth of the petitioner, in various records, maintained in the office of the respondents. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this stage, when he has attained the age of superannuation and further, he has received payment of gratuity. 4) A Division Bench of the High Court of Caicutta in the matter of Puspa Rani Chakrabarty and others and A!!ahabad Bank and others, observed at para Nos. 3 and 6 as under: "3 Since the entries were made in his own hand writing and he served the bank with those entries and did not wake up to eorrect that date of birth till he attained the age of superannuation, therefore, now he cannot be permitted to turn back at the fag end of his career to challenge the entry in his service record of the date of birth. The view taken by the leamed single Judge appears to be correct and there is no ground to interfere in the appeal." "6. The right to get fhe date of birth corrected either on the basis of matriculation certificate or otherwise is nota tegal rightfor less a constitutionat right." 5) The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. S.C. Chadha2 observed as under: "The sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades, espeeialiy on the eve of superannuation of such public servant." ' 2000 (2) LLJ 681 2 (2004) 3 SCC 394 -3 w 6) The Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others Vs. Raj KumarAgnihotri observed as under: "It is thus seen from the above quote judgments that this Court has consistently taken the view that correction in entries made in govemment records on the basis of which the govemment servant got the service cannot b& aiiowed to be changed just a few years before retirement or at the fag end of his retirement." 7) Applying the above stated principle of iaw to the facts of the present case, it is admitted that the entry of date of birth of the petitioner in the service record was made by the petitioner as 30-9-1946 when he was appointed on the post of Loader on 1-1-1979. At the fag end of his career, he made a representation on 16-8-2005 (Annexure P/2) for correction of date of birth on the basis of alleged Primary School Examination Certificate wherein his date of birth was recorded as 10-4-1954. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence to indicate as to what prevented him from raismg the issue eariier or at the time of his empioyment. The petitioner kept waiting tili he made a representation about oneyear before the retirement. The petjtioner has not made out a case for interference with a correction of date of birth as recorded in his service book. 8) As a result and for the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. . ^. SatishK.Agnihotri Judge | Raju '^f\f\ (2005) 11SCC 465