WP(C) 821/2007 MCBEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr. A Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.821/2007 an d Dr. G Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.5252/2007. I have al so heard Mr. S Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC. Both the writ petitions pertain to the prayer for change of date of birt h in the Service Book at the fag end of service carrear and in fact the prayer w as made at a time when the petitioner in WP(C) No.821/2007 was served with a ret irement notice and the petitioner in WP(C) No.5252/2007 had already gone on reti rement on attaining the age of superannuation. WP(C) No.821/2007 It is the case of the petitioner that he had entered into the services o f the respondent Corporation on 01.09.1976 as a Casual Worker and thereafter, hi s service was regularised w.e.f. 01.04.1979. He was served with retirement notic e on 13.12.2006 notifying that he would go on retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.03.2007. By the said notice he was directed to handover ch arge to the branch Head on 31.03.2007. Such retirement of the petitioner was not ified on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the Service Book, which is 3 1.03.1947. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid date of birth recorded in the Service Book is not correct and that as per the horoscope his date of birth is 1950. It is the further assertion of the petitioner that since the Medical Board has found his age as 52 to 55 years in the year 2007, he is entitled to continu e in his service till the superannuation age of 58/60 years. WP(C) No.5252/2007 In this case, the petitioner was appointed in the respondent Corporation , in the year 1973. While he was serving as Handyman he was served with the Anne xure-1 order dated 26.07.2006 notifying that he would go on retirement on attain ing the age of superannuation w.e.f. 01.09.2006. According to the petitioner, hi s date of birth in the Service Book was wrongly recorded and that his actual dat e of birth being 17.06.1951 he is required to be continued in service till he at tains the age of 60 years. In this connection the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-2 birth certificate dated 26.09.2006, which is a document obtained by him after 33 years of joining the service in 1973. Stand of the Respondents In both the writ petitions, the respondents have filed their counter-aff idavits denying the claim of the petitioners. It has been contended that the pet itioners having joined the services of the respondent Corporation declaring thei r respective date of birth and accepting the same in the Service Book cannot now resile back from the said position so as to contend that their respective date of birth was wrongly recorded in the Service Book. Referring to the provisions o f SR 8(C) it has been stated that the petitioners cannot claim another date of b irth so as to contend that the earlier date of birth recorded in the Service boo k is wrong. In this connection the respondents have emphasised the limitation pr escribed in the matter of correction of date of birth. In the Counter affidavit filed in WP(C) No.821/2007 the respondents have referred to the fact that, the Service Book of the petitioner was opened way ba ck in 1979 recording his date of birth as 30.03.1947 and that at the time of ret irement he had completed 31 years of his service. Further, in the affidavit date d 27.06.2003 sworn by the petitioner, he himself stated that his age was 53 year s. In the counter affidavit filed in the WP(C) No.5252/2007 the respondents have stated that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the Servic e Book as per the declaration made by him. The date of birth recorded is 01.09.1 946 and the same was recorded at the time of entering the services of the Corpor ation. As in the case of the first petitioner in this case also, the petitioner has completed 33 years of service. By now law is well settled that no request for change of birth can be en tertained at the fag end of ones service carrear. Both the petitioners after hav ing accepted their recorded date of birth throughout their service carrier canno t be allowed to take a different stand so as to claim few more years of service on the basis of another date of birth the whole basis of which, is the purported horoscope/affidavit/medical report. There is nothing to show that at any point of time throughout the service carrear of the petitioners they had made any atte mpt to get their date of birth, allegedly wrongly recorded in the Service Book, corrected. It is only after they were informed that they would go on retirement on the particular date on attaining the age of superannuation, they started movi ng the authorities seeking correction of date of birth by way of reducing their age so as to gain few more years of service. The petitioners allalong having accepted their recorded date of birth in the Service Book as a token of acceptance of which they having signed and affix ed their finger prints in the Service Book cannot be allowed to resile back from the said position, that too, at the fag end of their service carrear. As per the provisions of SR 8(C), no alternation in the date of birth sh ould be allowed except in very rare case where a manifest mistake has been made. Even then also such mistake is rectified at the earliest opportunity and in no case request for change in the date of birth of a Government servant made within three years of the date of superannuation should be entertained. In the instant cases, request for such change of birth was made just at the eve of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation and thus, rightly did not entertain by th e respondent authorities. For all the aforesaid reasons both the writ petitions are dismissed with out, however, any order as to cost.