WA 92/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 28/1/2011 passed by the learned Sin gle Judge in WP(C) 201/2011. The appellant joined service with the Police Department some time in the year 1976. At the time of joining, he indicated his date of birth as 23/1/1951. This date was confirmed by him sometime in 2000 in his Verification Roll. Under the circumstances, the appellant was due to retire on 31/1/2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. Just a few months before his retirement on 8/11/2010, he made a representation f or correcting his date of birth from 23/1/1951 to 23/1/1952. The Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, seems to have accepted his request but the Assistant Inspecto r General of Police (Admn.), Assam, rejected the correction made by the Superint endent of Police. This was by an order dated 27/12/2010. The reason given by the Assistant Inspector General of Police was that the Superintendent of Police had no authority to alter the date of birth. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred WP(C) 201/2011 which was reje cted by the learned Single Judge and that is how the appellant is before us. It is clear from the records that the appellant did not object to his da te of birth being shown as 23/1/1951 for almost 34 years. Infact even in the yea r 2000, he affirmed his date of birth as 23/1/1951 in the Verification Roll. It is only a few months before his superannuation that he raked up the issue of his date of birth. It is well settled that just before the retirement of a Government employee, if he rakes up the issue of his date of birth, it should not ordinarily be entertai ned. Applying this principle, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition. We cannot ignore the fact that for almost 34 years, no effort was made by the pe titioner to correct his date of birth to 23/1/1952 but just about 2/3 months bef ore his superannuation, he raked up the issue. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to disturb the order passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.