This writ application has been filed for correcting the date of birth of the petitioner. The date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the service record as 17.7.29 and the petitioner by filing an application/representation in the year 1982 prayed that it should be recorded as 1.4.45. This prayer for correction of the date of birth was made on the basis of Annexure II, the school certificate dated 20.3.82 issued by the school authority. The petitioner has retired from service in the meantime in the year 1987. Earlier there was a Civil Rule being CR No. 1503 of 1995 with the same prayer and that was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 10.4.95 by which this Court directed the Chief Engineer (Distribution) ASEB to pass order on the representation of the petitioner within a period of 3, months and accordingly this impugned order (Annexure VI) was passed. The learned Chief Engineer (Distribution) ASEB has pointed out that the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in the service book as 17.7.29 and that also was endorsed by the petitioner by putting his signature. Further the petitioner made necessary record for Provident Fund and there his date of birth was recorded as 17.7.29. The learned Chief Engineer has stated that the petitioner joined the service in the year 1964 and he made the prayer for correction of the date of birth in the year 1982 as per the school certificate issued by the authority concerned in the year 1982. He came to the finding that there was no irresistable, irrefutable and conclusive proof to support the contention of the petitioner regarding the date of birth as 1.4.45. Having arrived at this finding, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected. Hence, this writ application. 2. Heard Mr. BL Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Chutia, learnes Standing Counsel for ASEB. 3. Mr. Singh, counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits that the school certificate is the basis for the date of birth and the authority was not justified in refusing to accept the school certificate as the proof for the date of birth of the petitioner. J. Chutia, learnes Standing Counsel for ASEB. 3. Mr. Singh, counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits that the school certificate is the basis for the date of birth and the authority was not justified in refusing to accept the school certificate as the proof for the date of birth of the petitioner. The authority has given the reasons for not accepting the school certificate as the basis for correcting the date of birth of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner joined the service in the year 1964 and in the certificate it was , stated that the petitioner left the school in the year 1959 and only in the year 1982 the petitioner produced the school certificate with a prayer for correcting the date of birth of the petitioner as per the school certificate. 4. The law on the point regarding correction of date of birth has been settled by a catena of decisions on which the reliance has been placed by Mr. J. Chutia. 1. AIR 1993 SC 2646 (Dashrath Baburao Sangale & others vs Kashimath Bhaskar Data) wherein the Supreme Court has pointed out as follows :" "The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book." 2. (1994) 6 SCC 302 (State of TN vs. TV Venugopalan) wherein the Supreme Court pointed out that if the authority rejects and application/ representation for correction of the date of birth, the Court should be slow in interferring with such a decision. The Court in order to interfere with such a decision must come to finding that the evidence adduced before the authority was unimpeachable and irrefutable. Ordinarily the Court should not trench into the field of appreciation of evidence and circumstances in its evaluation to reach a conclusion on merits as the Court is not deciding the matter on the appellate side. 3. (1995) 4 SCC 172 (Burn Standard Co. Ordinarily the Court should not trench into the field of appreciation of evidence and circumstances in its evaluation to reach a conclusion on merits as the Court is not deciding the matter on the appellate side. 3. (1995) 4 SCC 172 (Burn Standard Co. Ltd. vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar & another) wherein the Supreme Court pointed out as follows : "The extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant for enabling the employees of Government or its instrumentalities to continue in service beyond the period of their entitlement according to date of birth accepted by their employees, placing reliance on the so-called newly found material. The fact that an employee of Government or its instrumentality who remained in service for over decades, with no objection whatsoever raised as to his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct, when all of a sudden comes forward towards the fag end of his service career with a writ application before the High Court seeking correction of his date of birth in his service record, the very conduct of non-raising of an objection in the matter by the employee should be a sufficient reason for the High Court, not to entertain such applications on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay and laches. Moreover, discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court can never be said to have been reasonably and judicially exercised if it entertains such writ application. Therefore, there should be no hesitation in holding that ordinarily High Court should not, in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ application/ petition filed by an employee of the Government or its insturmentality towards the fag end of his service, seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his .'Service and Leave Record' or Service Register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement." 4. (1996) 2 SCC 484 (Vishakhapatnam Dock Labour Board vs. E. Atchanna & others) wherein the Supreme Court relying on its earlier judgment in (1993) 2 SCC 162 (Union of India vs. Harnam Singh) pointed out that when a person had fixed his thumb impression in the service records it is not possible to believe that he did not know what was recorded therein with respect to his date of birth. 5. 5. In the instant case, as was pointed out by the Chief Engineer (Distribution) ASEB, the petitioner herein himself put his signature in the service record knowing fully that his date of birth was recorded as 17.7.29 in the service book and now the petitioner cannot make a summersault stating that his date of birth should be 1.4.45 and not 17.7.29. That sort of attempt of a person should always be looked into by the authority with grain of salt. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. 6. At this stage, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received his retiral benefits. The respondents are directed to give all retiral benefits due to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% from the date on which it became due. The petitioner may obtain a certified copy of this order and shall produce the same before the authority to do the needful in terms of this order. 7. With the above directions and observations, this writ application is disposed of.