W.P. No.20836/2011 (S) Mangal Prasad vs. Union of India & Ors. 15.12.2011 Heard Shri Abhilash Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by communication dated 30.6.2011 by which he has been informed that he will be retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 31.12.2011 on the basis of the fact that his date of birth recorded in the service record is 1.1.1952. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, on receiving the aforesaid impugned communication, approached the authorities by filing an affidavit on 31.10.2011 requesting them to change his date of birth from 1.1.1952 to 1.7.1954 which is the date of birth recorded in the marksheet issued to the petitioner by the District Board. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the date of birth of the petitioner is 1.7.1954 in accordance with the aforesaid certificate, a copy of which has been filed alongwith the petition as Annexure P-7, the petitioner's date of birth should be corrected and he be permitted to remain in service on the basis of the aforesaid corrected date of birth in accordance with the provisions of the implementation instruction No.76 issued by the respondent authorities. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition, specifically Anneuxres 1 W.P. No.20836/2011 (S) Mangal Prasad vs. Union of India & Ors. P-4 and P-5, it is clear that the date of birth of the petitioner, recorded in the service record at the time of entry in service, is 1.1.1952. It is also undisputed that since 1973, that is the time when the petitioner entered service, the aforesaid date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded in the service record which has never been disputed or assailed by the petitioner and that it is only after receiving the impugned communication dated 30.6.2011 that the petitioner has, for the first time, approached the authorities by filing an affidavit on 31.10.2011 alongwith the marksheet, Annexure P-7, for change of his date of birth. That apart, it is also clear from a perusal of Anneuxre P-7 that the said marksheet is a duplicate marksheet and appears to have been obtained after receiving the impugned communication as no date of issuance therein has been mentioned and the said marksheet also does not contain signature of the Principal of the Mission Primary School, Barkuti from which it is alleged that the petitioner has passed the Primary School. It is also clear from a perusal of implementation instruction no.76 which has been produced before this Court at the time of hearing, that only those cases are required to be referred to the Age Determination Committee wherein the employee is seeking change of his date of birth on the basis of the marksheet that has been issued prior to the petitioner entering into service which is not the case in the present petition. 2 W.P. No.20836/2011 (S) Mangal Prasad vs. Union of India & Ors. The Supreme Court in the cases of State of U.P and Another vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyay, (2005) 6 SCC 49 and Coal India Ltd. and Another vs. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee & Ors, (2005) 12 SCC 201, has categorically held that the issue of change of date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of service specifically after issuance of the communication of superannuation. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record is 1.1.1952 and as the petitioner has failed to make out any case for referring the matter to the Age Determination Committee under implementation instruction No.76 and in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, I do not find any ground to entertain the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. ( R. S. JHA ) J U D G E mms/- 3