ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable for By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner-Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Ban challenged an order passed by the Industrial Court, allowing the application moved by the respondent under section 32 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act and directing nuance of the respondent in service. 3. The respondent joined the service of the petitioner bank in the year 1967 clerk. At the time of seeking appointment, the respondent showed his age as ars and also submitted H.S.C. Examination Certificate issued by the State. The H.S.C.certificate reveal the date of birth of the respondent to be 3rd st, 1948. The said date of birth is carried in service record of the respondent according to the date of birth recorded in the service record, the respondent to retire on attaining age of superannuation on the last day of the month of st, 2006. The petitioner moved an application in the year 2000, seeking to t the recorded date of birth viz. 3-8-1948 to 3-4-1950. It is stated in the lication that the date of birth of the respondent is not 3-8-1948 but the same is 1950. It is then stated in the application, that to substantiate the date of birth 3-4-1950, the respondent would submit birth certificate. Fact remains, that July, 2006, the respondent did not submit any document to substantiate his to the date of birth being 3-4-1950 instead the one recorded in the service rd being 3-8-1948. It appears that the respondent moved an application to the sil office and demanded birth certificate. As the register was not available, respondent filed an affidavit and on the basis of the said affidavit, a certificate e to be issued indicating the date of birth of the respondent to be 3-4-1950. petitioner, thus, moved the bank in July, 2006 along with birth certificate was issued on the strength of the affidavit filed by the respondent for ge of date of birth. The same was not granted by the bank. According to the petitioner-bank, the request for change of date of birth was rejected on 12-8-2006 the bank. petitioner, thus, moved the bank in July, 2006 along with birth certificate was issued on the strength of the affidavit filed by the respondent for ge of date of birth. The same was not granted by the bank. According to the petitioner-bank, the request for change of date of birth was rejected on 12-8-2006 the bank. In the above fact situation, the respondent filed a complaint ULP before the Industrial Court and along with the said complaint also moved an application seeking interim relief, with a view to continue him in service, on the basis of the date of birth claimed by the respondent to be the correct one. The ustrial Court granted the said relief and aggrieved thereby, the present petition been filed by the petitioner bank. 4. It is a settled position in law that persons holding offices in public employment cannot be permitted to seek change in the date of birth at the fag end the service career. The date of birth which is recorded with the bank is based H.S.C. Certificate issued by the Board way back in the year 1967 and the said e of birth is sought to be countered on the basis of a birth certificate issued on basis of an affidavit filed by the respondent, in view of the fact that the original register was not available. If the two conflicting documents pitted against other are weighed, it can be prima facie said that the H.S.C. certificate uld carry more probative value as compared to the birth certificate issued, only on the basis of an affidavit filed by the respondent. In this view of the tter, the respondent had not made out a prima facie case for his continuance in service after having reached the age of superannuation, but, the Industrial court, by passing the impugned order, has directed the petitioner to continue the respondent in service. In my opinion, the impugned order suffers from patent gality and cannot be permitted to hold the field. In the facts of the present case, even if the respondent is made to retire on the last day of August, 2006, and if the respondent ultimately succeeds in the complaint, he can very was compensated by payment of salary for the period for which the respon deprived of service. There is no question of any irreparable loss being cau the respondent. There is no question of any irreparable loss being cau the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent apprehends that unpretext that the complaint is pending with the Industrial Court, the petition not release the terminallretiral benefits which are due and receivable respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that treati respondent as having retired from service from 31 st August, 2006, the petitioners shall release all the terminallretiral benefits to the respondent expeditiousl 5. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed Industrial Court, dated 29-8-2006 is quashed and set aside. The responde be deemed to have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuaal. 31 st August, 2006, subject to the decision of the complaint. The Industrial is directed to expeditiously decide the complaint. Rule made absolute in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.