Order Petitioner Smt. Santhama Verughees @ Verghese, an Auxiliary Nursing Midwife, working at the relevant time under the Civil Surgeon-cum-Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Motihari, by means of this writ application, has sought for a mandamus against the respondents to correct her date of birth in the service book as 25th November, 1936, in place of 25th November, 1935. 2. The petitioner after obtaining training, joined in Grade A Nurse with effect from 18th February, 1960, at Darbhanga. Admittedly her date of birth as would appear from the service book was recorded as 25th November, 1935. This is not in dispute that the petitioner also signed her service book acknowledging the entry as 25th November, 1935 and no objection whatsoever was raised at that stage. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that her date of birth was wrongly recorded as 25th November, 1935, which would be evident from the School Leaving Certificate as well as the certificate granted by the ex-employer, where date of birth was entered as 25th November, 1936. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is, although she made applications before the authorities for correction of date of birth, but the same was rejected and she was compelled to retire with effect from 31st November, 1993. 5. Mr. Verma contended that since there are• several relevant documents issued by the competent authorities mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner as 25th November, 1936, it was unjust on the part of the respondents to reject her claim without giving a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the decision of the authorities to superannuate the petitioner with effect from 30th November, 1993, is wholly illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. While placing reliance over a decision in the case of Jagannath Sharma versus Union of India, 1987 (1) SLJ 410, Mr. Verma contended that correction of date of birth of an employee is a legal right. It cannot be denied merely on the basis of administrative instruction. In the present case, the respondents have failed to give an opportunity to the petitioner nor any reason has been assigned for rejecting the application of the petitioner. 6. A reliance was also placed over a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and ors. ( AIR 1967 SC 1269 ). Relevant passage of the judgment to which Mr. 6. A reliance was also placed over a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and ors. ( AIR 1967 SC 1269 ). Relevant passage of the judgment to which Mr. Verma placed reliance is as follows : "12. X X X X We think that such an inquiry and decision were contrary to the basic concept of justice and cannot have any value. It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences, as already stated, must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence......... 7. In my view, the petitioner cannot get any benefit on the basis of the principles laid down in the abovementioned cases. Admittedly, in the present case, there has been no suppression or alteration of the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in her service book. This is also admitted that at the time of initial appointment, in the year 1960 itself, the petitioner had knowledge that her date of birth in the service book was mentioned as 25th November, 1935. This is not the case where the date of birth or service book was altered without holding any inquiry or opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. 8. A question may arise whether a Government servant who had declared his/her date of birth at the initial stage of employment can be allowed to seek correction on the eve of retirement. 9. As noticed in the present case, the only application which was made by the petitioner for correction of date of birth was on 12.7.1993. It cannot be denied that she had full knowledge that her date of superannuation was 30th November, 1993. 10. True it is that in most of the service rules, no time limit is prescribed for a Government servant to make application for correction of date of birth. But this would not give a liberty to such an employee to make prayer for alteration at any stage. 11. In my view, the practice of making such prayer at the fag-end of service career should not be encouraged. But this would not give a liberty to such an employee to make prayer for alteration at any stage. 11. In my view, the practice of making such prayer at the fag-end of service career should not be encouraged. No mandamus should be issued with respect to such a stale claim of the employees. The Supreme Court while examining the case of Union of India & ors. v. Kantilal Hematram Pandya as reported in (1993) 3 SCC 17, has already held that a Government servant is not to be allowed to make an application for correction of date of birth beyond time. It would be apt to take notice of the relevant passage of the report herein : "9. X X X X He allowed the matter to rest till he neared the age of superannuation. The respondent slept over his rights to get the date of birth altered for more than thirty years and woke up from his deep slumber on the eve of his retirement only. The law laid down by this Court in Harnam Singh's case was, thus fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the respondent and the Tribunal failed to follow the same without even pointing out any distinguishing features on facts. Stale claims and belated applications for alteration of the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of initial entry, made after unexplained and inordinate delay, on the eve of retirement, need to be scrutinised carefully and interference made sparingly and with circumspection. The approach has to be cautious and not casual. On facts, the respondent was not entitled to the relief which the Tribunal granted to him ..." 12. It is true that service rule which governed the case of Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993) 2 SCC 162 as relief by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors. v. Kantilal Hematram Pandya (supra) a time limit was fixed for making an application for correction of the date of birth. Although in the present case, no such rule was brought to my notice but in view of specific mandate of the Supreme Court not to entertain stale claims and belated applications for alteration of date of birth after unexplained and inordinate delay on the eve of retirement, it would not be proper to ask the respondent to grant. Although in the present case, no such rule was brought to my notice but in view of specific mandate of the Supreme Court not to entertain stale claims and belated applications for alteration of date of birth after unexplained and inordinate delay on the eve of retirement, it would not be proper to ask the respondent to grant. relief to the petitioner at this stage. 13. For the reasons, stated above, the application is• devoid of any merit, and, therefore, dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.