JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who is an ex-employee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board for short R.S.E.B. hereinafter referred to as "the Board" and who retired from the services of the Board on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.1994 has challenged the impugned order dated 31.5.1994 (Annexure-6), order dated 29.10.94 'Annexure-10) as well as the order dated 31.10.1994 (Annexure-11), passed by the Competent Authority on the grounds inter-alia that he was initially appointed in services of the Board as Line Helper w.e.f. 8.12.1961 and his services were regularised in the said cadre w.e.f. 1.1.1964 as borne-out from the seniority list, issued by the Superintending Engineer, R.S.E.B. vide it's circular dated 10.5.1975 i.e. the date when the first seniority list of the employees was published by the Board vide (Annexure-1) indicating the position of the employees of the Board in order of seniority as on 31.3.1968. The petitioner's name is indicated at serial No. I I in the said provisional seniority list and in Column No. 3 his date of birth is indicated as 3.10.1936. 3. The petitioner has further contended that his real elder brother was also appointed in services of the Board as Helper in M.R. Section w.e.f. 2.7.1962 and was regularised in the said cadre w.e.f. 1.1.1964 and his date of birth in the aforesaid seniority list is indicated as 4.6.36. The said elder brother of the petitioner also retired from services of the Board on attaining the age of superannation w.e.f.30.6.1994 since his date of birth was correctly recorded. 4. At the time, when the petitioner was appointed in service, respondent-Board did not have any regulations of it's own governing the service conditions of the Staff and the regulations known as R.S.E.B. (Technical Workmen) Service Regulations, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1975 came into force w.e.f. 27.1.1976. As on 3.8.1990 an amendment was introduced in the aforesaid regulations prescribing position for determination of age of the employees of the Board serving as Technical Staff of the Board, whereby the existing regulation 4(D) was amended by incorporating regulations 4(D)(2) to 4(DX5) whereby the existing regulation 4(D) was renumbered as 4(D)(1). Regulation 4(D)(5) is relevant for deciding the controversy at issue, and which reads as under : "The evidence in proof of age should be produced immediately at the time of joining. Regulation 4(D)(5) is relevant for deciding the controversy at issue, and which reads as under : "The evidence in proof of age should be produced immediately at the time of joining. No representation for corrections of age recorded at the time of joining service shall be entertained, if it is not made within three years of joining the service." A true copy of the aforesaid amendment dated 3.8.1990 of the Board's regulations which was circulated to this court by the learned counsel representing the Board at the time of hearing was taken on record vide Ex.C. 1. 5. It is clearly apparent from the perusal of the regulation 4(D)(5) that if any employee of the Board is aggrieved from-in-correct entry in the record regarding his date of birth, then it is binding on the said employee to make representation regarding correction in his date of birth within the stipulated period of three years from the date of joining the service and not thereafter. 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not aware about the aforesaid amendment, which was incorporated in the regulations of the Board and hence he could not have challenged the same or represented to the Board for necessary correction in the service record of the petitioner. 7. In this regard I am of the opinion that it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to have filed his objection as soon as the first seniority list was published by the Board but instead the petitioner had chosen to wait for the indefinite period till the fag end of his career i.e. 31.10.1994 when he retired on attaining the age of superannuation from service of the Board. The first representation in this regard was made by the petitioner belatedly as on 28.2.1994 vide (Annexure-3) i.e. about eight months before his retirement from service and the petitioner had annexed the copy of the date of birth as recorded in the school records as 5.10.1941 vide (Annexure-4). Thereafter failing to elicit any response from the respondents the petitioner finally served a notice for demand of justice on the respondents through his counsel on 19.5.1994 vide (Annexure-5), wherein he contended that his actual date of birth is 5.10.1941 as entered in the school records but the same has been erroneously mentioned in the service book as 3.10.1936. 8. Thereafter failing to elicit any response from the respondents the petitioner finally served a notice for demand of justice on the respondents through his counsel on 19.5.1994 vide (Annexure-5), wherein he contended that his actual date of birth is 5.10.1941 as entered in the school records but the same has been erroneously mentioned in the service book as 3.10.1936. 8. Thereafter the board vide it's communication dated 31.5.1994 (Annexure-6) duly intimated the petitioner that as per their records, the petitioner shall be deemed to have retired from services of the Board w.e.f. 31.10.1994 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service book. 9. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition (1st petition) before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vide S.B. Civil Writ Pt. No. 5239/94 and when the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 23.9.1994 this Court after hearing the petitioner had directed the Board's authorities to give due opportunities of hearing to the petitioner in view of the notice for justice demand dated 19.5.1994 so as to satisfy the petitioner with regard to the correct date of birth. The learned Single Judge of this Court had further directed the respondents to pass a reasoned order as to on what basis the petitioner's date of birth had not been correctly recorded as stated by him and what were the documents on which the petitioner had placed reliance in support of his contentions. The writ petition was disposed of by this court with the said observations. Thereafter the petitioner has approached this Court again by way of the second writ petition vide S.B. Civil Writ Pt. No. 6688/94, which has been taken up by this Court for hearing and final disposal today i.e. on 14.3.1997. 10. The writ petition was disposed of by this court with the said observations. Thereafter the petitioner has approached this Court again by way of the second writ petition vide S.B. Civil Writ Pt. No. 6688/94, which has been taken up by this Court for hearing and final disposal today i.e. on 14.3.1997. 10. During the course of hearing, learn-d counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned orders vide Annexures-6, 10 & 11 as being contrary to law and arbitrary and against the directions, issued by this Court in it's order dated 23.9.1994 as referred to above on the grounds that there is no whisper in the impugned orders passed by the respondents as to what criteria was adopted by the Board in determining the intended date of retirement of the petitioner i.e.31.10.1994, when he retired from services of the Board on attaining the age of superannuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the provisional seniority list, published by the Board on 10.5.1975 on the ground that it does not justify the correct entry regarding the date of birth of the petitioner, which has been indicated as 3.10.1936. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that there is no justification for retiring the petitioner pre-maturely as on 31.10.1994 and if the entry regarding his date of birth had been correctly reckoned by the Board from the Certificate, issues by the Headmaster of the School vide (Annexure-4) dated 12.2.1994, wherein his date of birth is indicated as 5.10.1941, then he would have retired from services of the Board on 31.10.1999. 11. In this regard, I am of the view that it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to have furnished the school leaving certificate indicating the correct date of birth i.e. 5.10.1941 at the time of joining the services of the Board, which admittedly he has not done and it is for this reason that the date of birth as per the information conveyed to the Board at the date of joining the services of the Board has been indicated as 3.10.1936 which is not open to challenge. 12. I have perused the service record of the petitioner, which has been made available for perusal of this Court at the time of hearing by Mr. 12. I have perused the service record of the petitioner, which has been made available for perusal of this Court at the time of hearing by Mr. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel representing the respondents and from the perusal of the said service record, it is clearly apparent that the petitioner's date of birth has been indicated as 3.10.1936 and there is no interpolation in the same and this fact is also borne-out from .Annexure-1 dated 10.5.1975 filed by the petitioner himself along with the writ petition. 13. The respondents on being noticed by this Court have controverted the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner on the grounds inter-alia that the present writ petition has been preferred after un-due latches inasmuch as the respondents had issued atleast three seniority lists from time to time and in all the seniority lists, the date of birth of the petitioner had been correctly recorded as per the information conveyed to the Board by the petitioner himself at the time of his joining service and hence it was not open to the petitioner at the verge of retirement to have challenged his date of birth as having not been correctly recorded by the Board since the petitioner had not even availed the opportunity of filing objections within the stipulated period soon after the publication of the aforesaid seniority list and it is not further open to the petitioner to agitate this issue again before his Court at this belated stage after the lapse of almost three decades by way of the present writ petition after the dismissal of the first writ petition on 23.9.1994. 14. By way of the alternative argument, the respondents have further contended that nothing prevented the petitioner to have produced cogent evidence in support of his correct date of birth as so contended by him i.e. 5.10.1941 from the school records and the said opportunity has also not been availed by the petitioner by having brought this fact to the notice of the concerned authorities either at the time of joining his services or within the three years of his joining the service as per the Board's regulation 4(D) (Amended) as referred to above. 15. 15. I am fortified in my observations from the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. Harnam Singh reported in 1994 (1) LLJ page 318 : AIR 1994 SC page 1760 : [1994(l) SLR 358 (SC)] and the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. Ram Suia Sharma reported in 1996(7) SCC page 421 : [ 1996(2) SLR 16 (SC)] 16. In the matter of Union of India v. Harnam Singh (supra), similar controversy had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court with reference to the delay and lathes on the part of the respondent in not getting the entry regarding his date of birth corrected in the service records. The respondent had joined the Government service in the Ministry of Finance (Defence) in Class IV post as a Peon on February 22, 1956. At the time of his entry into the Government service, his service book was prepared and date of birth was recorded as 20.5.1934 and since he failed in the matriculation examination, against the column of educational qualification 'matric failed' was recorded. It appears that the respondent later on again appeared in the matriculation examination of the Panjab University and passed the same in May, 1956. Thereafter he was appointed as L.D.C. in the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 9, 1957. In the service book of the respondent an entry was accordingly made showing his educational qualification as Matric from Panjab University. This entry was made underneath the earlier entry 'matric failed' and the changed entry was signed by some official of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 7.9.1957. Though the date of birth of respondent as recorded in the matriculation certificate was 7.4.1938 but while amending the entry about his educational qualification, the entry relating to his date of birth was not altered to correspond to the date given in the matriculation certificate and it continued to be recorded as 20.5.1934. Thereafter on being notified regarding his intended date of superannuation as 31.5.1992, the respondent realised that he was being retired on the basis of his date of birth as originally recorded in the service record as 20.5.1934, ignoring the date of birth as reflected in the matriculation certificate. Thereafter on being notified regarding his intended date of superannuation as 31.5.1992, the respondent realised that he was being retired on the basis of his date of birth as originally recorded in the service record as 20.5.1934, ignoring the date of birth as reflected in the matriculation certificate. Thereafter he made series of representations, which were rejected by the competent authority on the ground that when the initial entry with regard *o his educational clarifications was altered in the service record as aforesaid and that thereafter he did not hear anything to the contrary, he presumed that the appellants had also corrected his date of birth in the service book. The Apex Court observed that Government Servant after entering into the service acquires a right to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation as fixed by the State in exercise of is powers regulating the service conditions of an employee and unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service Rules, the date of birth entered in the service record of a civil servant is of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by it's entry in the service record. It was further observed by the Apex Court that the Government Servant has no doubt a right to get the date of birth corrected in the service records if incorrectly entered at the initial stage of employment but it is open to a Civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth at a later stage. If he is in possession of irrefutable proof and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. It was further observed that a Government servant, who makes an application for correction of the date of birth in his service records beyond the stipulated time so fixed, cannot claim as a matter of right the correction of his date of birth notwithstanding the good evidence he may be in possession of to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly, but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts and tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. 17. I am of the confirmed opinion that the law helps the vigilant and hot the indolent and applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court to the instant case, it is borne out on the basis of the discussion that if the petitioner was in possession of the specific evidence regarding his correct date of birth i.e. the School leaving certificate then nothing prevented him from bringing this fact to the notice of the respondents at the earliest, which admittedly he has not done and hence it was not open to the petitioner to challenge the same way of either the earlier or subsequent writ petitions as referred to above. The said proof in the form of a certificate, issued by the Headmaster of the school which he last attended was produced before the respondent-Board at most belated stage nearing the intended date of retirement i.e. 31.10.1994 as referred to above. 18. I am further of the opinion that it will be wholly unjust and improper for the petitioner to have requested for the correction of his date of birth in the service record at the verge of his retirement particularly when nothing prevented him from doing so at the earliest possible opportunity and in view of the amended regulation 4(D) of the Board's regulations, 1975 he could have done at most within 3 years of joining the service, which admittedly he failed to do so. Moreover the petitioner cannot be said to have any grievance in the matter and there is no question of either violation of law or violation of principles of natural justice in this case because in pursuance of the directions of this Court in the earlier writ petition No. 5239/94 decided on 23.9.94 vide (Annexure-7) the Board after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner had passed the speaking order disposing of the representation of the petitioner as aforesaid on 29.10.1994 vide (Annexure-10). 19. 19. In the matter of Union of India v. Ram Suia Sharma (supra), the Apex court re-iterated it's earlier view in the matter of Union of India v. Harnam Singh (supra) and observed that it is not open to a Government employee seeking correction of the date of birth in the service records at a belated stage and the impugned order of the Tribunal allowing such claims by giving direction to the Government to do the necessary corrections in the record was quashed and set-aside being per se illegal. 20. Prima-facie, I am of the considered opinion that the fact regarding the publication of the first provisional seniority list dated 10.05.1975 (Annexure-1) was though with the knowledge of the petitioner, but since he did not file objections to the same within the period as stipulated in the regulations regarding his date of birth, which was indicated in the said seniority list as 3.10.1936 nor he had challenged the same by filing any representation to the Board within the stipulated period of three years of his joining the service, hence he had forgone his right to challenge the same at a later date. 21. I am further of the view that it is not open to the petitioner to have challenged his date of birth, which was as per his contention has not been correctly recorded by the board at the belated stage, when he had rendered more than 33 years of service with the Board at the verge of his retirement, when he made his first representation to the Board on 28.2.1994 vide (Annexure-3) particularly on the heals of intended date of retirement i.e. 31.10.1994. 22. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had not been given sufficient' opportunity of being heard by the Board in terms of the order dated 23.09.1994 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5139/94 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and rather the respondent-Board had given full opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 29.10.1994 (Annexure-10) which is self-explanatory from the record. 23. As a result of the above discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. 24. 23. As a result of the above discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. 24. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner rendered full period of qualifying service of over 33 years and retired on attaining the age of superannuation as on 31.10.1994, he shall be entitled to all the retiral and other consequential benefits as admissible to him in accordance with law. 25. In case the petitioner makes any such representation to the respondent-Board within a period of 4 weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order, then the said representation shall be duly considered and necessary directions for the release of his retrial and other consequential benefits as admissible to him shall be dealt with and released by the respondent within a period of eight weeks thereafter.Ordered accordingly. *******