IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1169 of 2009 BRIJNANDAN RAM @ BRIJNANDAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE NARAYAN RAM RESIDENT OF VILL.-BIRRA, P.O.-BIRRA, P.S.- MAKHDAMPUR, DISTT.-JAHANABAD--------------APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR HAVING ITS OFFICE MAIN SECRETARIATE, P.S.- SACHIVALAYA, DISTT.-PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. RANGE, D.I.G., MUNGER. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUNGER 6. THE SARGENT MAJOR, DISTRICT POLICE FORCE, MUNGER. ---------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4. 4.1.2011 The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge on 31.7.2009 in C.W.J.C. no.9034 of 2009 whereby the appellant herein is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for not correcting his date of birth as 11.10.1950 as is entered in his service record. The appellant is also aggrieved by memo no.2208 dated 28.6.2009 issued by Superintendent of Police, Munger, under which he was informed that he would be superannuated with effect from 1.7.2009. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was a mistake in the entry in the service record wherein his date of birth of 1949 has been entered instead of entry made in the matriculation certificate. Learned single Judge has considered the merit of the case and refused to interfere with the order of the Superintendent of Police, Munger, on the ground that appellant has not availed the opportunity for correction of date of birth within the time prescribed under the Rule 96 of Bihar Financial 2 Rules and he had approached the Court at the fag end of his service. Learned single Judge granted liberty to the appellant to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Munger, and to ask him to make available the service book so that he can verify his age recorded in the service book. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even though the appellant has not chosen to correct the entry made in his service book within the time granted under the Financial Rules but it is a mistake on the record and it has to be corrected. We are not satisfied with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant as it is a fact that the appellant has approached this Court at the fag end of his service. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. But, however, liberty is granted to the appellant to avail the remedies available to him under the law for correction of his date of birth. With the above observation this Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. Sudip ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )