WP(C) 6864/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.GOSWAMI (Amitava Roy, J) The judgment and order dated 22.7.2010 passed by the learned Central Adm inistrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati (for short, hereinafter referred t o as ’the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 91/2010 negating the challenge to the entry of the petitioner’s date of birth in his Service Book is the subject matter of imp ugnment in the present petition. We have heard Mr N Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr AK S arkar, learned Standing Counsel, Railways. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered essential to i ssue formal notice. The petitioner had joined the service of the North-Eastern Frontier Rail way (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Railways’) as Boiler Khalasi on 1.10.78. According to him, his date of birth as per the records of the school wh ere he had studied is 28.2.1959 and, therefore, having regard to the superannuat ing age he is scheduled to retire on 28.2.2019. The petitioner has stated that a t the time of his entry in service he had furnished the school leaving certifica te testifying his date of birth to be 28.2.1959. While the matter rested at that , on 20.10.2008 the respondents published a list of employees who were slated to retire on superannuation during the period 31.1.2009 to 31.12.2011. In the said list the name of the petitioner appeared indicating his date of birth to be 29. 9.1950 and the date of his superannuation to be 30.9.2010. Being aggrieved, he s ubmitted a representation on 11.12.2008 before the Divisional Railway Manager, N .F. Railway, Lumding praying for correction of his date of birth. This was follo wed by another representation on 20.11.2009 but to no avail. Situated thus, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal for redress. In the written statement filed by the Railways in the proceeding before the learned Tribunal in substance it was urged on affirmation that the date of b irth of the petitioner in his service book was duly recorded as 29.9.1950 and th at as the said document had been signed by him, his turn around at this belated stage was not sustainable in law. The petitioner, however, in his rejoinder sou ght to contend that though he had signed the service book at that point of time the entry with regard to his date of birth had not been made then and the same w as inserted later on. By the impugned judgment and order, the relief claimed by the petitioner was declined. The assertions made by the parties in their pleadings have been reiterat ed before us. This Court with a view to examine the service book of the petitioner in original had summoned for the same. Mr Sarkar has produced the service book for the peru sal of this Court. It is apparent therefrom that the date of birth of the petiti oner has been recorded therein as 29.9.1950. The page containing the said entry admittedly is signed by him. Though the petitioner has sought to explain the abo ve by contending that he had signed the said page of the service book while it d id not contain the entry of his date of birth as 29.9.1950, noticeably the said statement as made in his rejoinder though repeated in his written statement, the same has been affirmed as true to his knowledge before the learned Tribunal and as a matter of record before this Court. This apparent inconsistency cannot be reconciled on this vital factual aspect. Moreover, it is also plainly obvious fr om the impugned judgment and order that the petitioner had in fact examined the service book himself on 13.12.2002. This is significant in view of his first rep resentation dated 11.12.2008 seeking to correct his date of birth from the one e ntered in his service book i.e. 29.9.1950 to 28.2.1959. The learned Tribunal in addition to scrutiny of the facts as involved, in our opinion, has rightly decli ned the relief to the petitioner with reference inter alia to Rule 225 of the IR EM, 1985, Vol-1 having a bearing on the issue. Admittedly, in terms of the said provision the petitioner was unduly delayed in making representation for correct ion of his date of birth as claimed by him. The disclosures as above, in our opi nion, do not entitle him to any relief as claimed. For the reasons alluded to hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Tribunal. This petition, therefore, lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.