JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to retire him on 30.11.2004 and instead treat him in service continuously till 30.11.2012 and deduct provident fund and other dues from his salary. He has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to decide representation dated 24.9.2004, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that Adarsh Inter College, Khsuru Khurd, Sant Kabir Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’) is an intermediate College recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1921 Act’). The College being in grant-in-aid, salary is being paid to the staff and teachers in accordance with the provisions of U.P. High School & Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1971 Act’). The petitioner claims to have been appointed in College as Class IV employee on 1.4.1973. He further claims that his date of birth as per the Kutumb Register maintained by Gram Panchayat is 1.12.1952 and on the basis of the same, the date of birth recorded in the service book was verified by the Principal vide certificate dated 26.8.1975 mentioning it as 1.12.1952. He obtained a Life Insurance Policy in August 1975 wherein also his date of birth was recorded as 1.12.1952. In 1989 one Head Clerk of the College, Mr. Ram Naresh Pandey required the petitioner to abandon his claim with respect to certain piece of land, which he did not agree and annoyed thereof, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice in the year 1998-99 as to why he should not be terminated having been appointed after the maximum age prescribed for Class IV employees to be appointed in the institution. The petitioner submitted his reply and the matter was closed. However, in September, 2004 he came to know that he is being made to retire on 30.8.2004 and getting shocked thereof, he made a representation dated 24.9.2004 to the District Inspector of Schools, Basti (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.I.O.S.’) stating that his date of birth is 1.12.1952 but has been manipulated as 1.12.1944 which is incorrect and should be rectified. However, in September, 2004 he came to know that he is being made to retire on 30.8.2004 and getting shocked thereof, he made a representation dated 24.9.2004 to the District Inspector of Schools, Basti (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.I.O.S.’) stating that his date of birth is 1.12.1952 but has been manipulated as 1.12.1944 which is incorrect and should be rectified. The DIOS sent letter dated 25.9.2004 to the Principal of the College requiring him to produce the original service book of the petitioner for considering the complaint of the petitioner but it is said that the service book was not produced before DIOS and the petitioner is being made to retire on 30.11.2004 compelling him to file the present writ petition. 3. On behalf of respondent No. 2, a counter affidavit has been filed through Standing Counsel and it is stated therein that at the time of appointment of the petitioner in 1973, a service book was prepared wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 1.12.1944 and the said entry was duly signed by the petitioner. It is also said that there is no overwriting or cutting in the service book of the petitioner and, therefore, his entire contention that his date of birth was 1.12.1952 and has been altered in the service book is incorrect. It is also averred that in the service book, the petitioner has signed on various occasions and had never disputed his date of birth, but at the fag end of his retirement, he sought to dispute his date of birth, which is not permissible in law. A date of birth once entered in service book is not liable to be changed at the time of retirement and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On behalf of respondent No. 4, a short counter affidavit has been filed annexing a photocopy of the service book of the petitioner showing his date of birth as 1.12.1944. It is denied that date of birth of the petitioner at any point of time has been altered and, on the contrary, it is said that on various occasions his date of birth has been shown as 1.12.1944 and it was never disputed by the petitioner. It is denied that date of birth of the petitioner at any point of time has been altered and, on the contrary, it is said that on various occasions his date of birth has been shown as 1.12.1944 and it was never disputed by the petitioner. The date of birth as recorded the service book was also within the knowledge of the petitioner, yet, he never disputed the same and, therefore, any challenge to the said date of birth at the time of retirement is wholly an afterthought and cannot be accepted. It is also said that in 1989, there was an audit objection pointing out that the petitioner’s date of birth was 1.12.1944 though he was appointed on 1.4.1973 when his age was 28 years and 4 months, though it could not have been more than 28 years as per the Rules and, therefore, his appointment appears to be irregular and illegal. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.11.1989 pointing out the said fact requiring him to show cause. The petitioner submitted reply and afterwards the petitioner’s appointment was not invalidated. It is further said that after representation made by the petitioner to DIOS in 2004, the Principal of the College brought the entire fact to the notice of the DIOS vide letter dated 19.10.2004 and the DIOS, after being satisfied with the record, refused to grant any indulgence. It is, thus, contended that claim of the petitioner to challenge his date of birth at the fag end of his retirement is clearly illegal, hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit replying the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 and said that the petitioner is an illiterate person and it is not clear as to how the attendance register contain his signatures. It is also said that in his reply dated 7.12.1989, he clearly stated that his age was not more than prescribed age and, therefore, his appointment was not illegal. Copy of the reply dated 7.12.1989 has been filed as Annexure RA-2. It is said that the service book shows tempering and his date of birth has been changed from 1.12.1952 to 1.12.1944. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Copy of the reply dated 7.12.1989 has been filed as Annexure RA-2. It is said that the service book shows tempering and his date of birth has been changed from 1.12.1952 to 1.12.1944. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Pursuant to this Court’s order dated 6.11.2007, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 has also produced the original service book of the petitioner for perusal of this Court in order to show the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in his service book at the time of entry in service and the same has also been perused by the Court as well as learned counsel for the petitioner. There are two service books. The one is that was initially prepared in 1973 at the time of appointment of petitioner and the date of birth in words and figure, both, has been mentioned as 1.12.1944. In column-9 of the service book, the petitioner has also signed and the said signature has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner after perusing the service book. The Court did not find any overwriting or cutting in the date of birth recorded in column-5 of the service book, which was initially prepared in 1973. Various annual entries have been recorded in the said service book and petitioner’s signature are evident on almost every page of the first service book, which shows that throughout he was aware of his date of birth recorded in the service book. The said service book contain entries upto January 1996 and thereafter a second service book was prepared on 1.1.1996 wherein also the date of birth in words and figure both has been mentioned in column-5 as 1.12.1944 and the second service book, which was prepared in 1996, also contain petitioner’s signature in column-9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has perused the second service book also and verified signatures of the petitioner thereon. He has also perused the entries with respect to date of birth in both the service books and could not point out any alternation, cutting or overwriting therein. It is, thus, evident that since the beginning, the petitioner was aware of his date of birth mentioned in the service book as 1.12.1944 and at no point of time did not disputed or requested the authorities to change the same. It is, thus, evident that since the beginning, the petitioner was aware of his date of birth mentioned in the service book as 1.12.1944 and at no point of time did not disputed or requested the authorities to change the same. It is almost after 30 years, i.e., at fag end, and, just before retirement, he sought to change the said date of birth by making representation before DIOS. It appears that DIOS also after perusing the service book of the petitioner felt satisfied that his date of birth was initially recorded as 1.12.1944, hence, no alternation is permissible. 7. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances is that had his date of birth being 1.12.1944, he could not have been appointed in 1973 since he was overage on the said date and this shows that the date of birth of the petitioner was not correctly written in the service book and he was entitled to continue till 30.12.2012 by treating his date of birth correctly as 1.12.1952. 8. The argument, in my view, is thoroughly misconceived and is liable to be rejected outright. Whether the appointment of the petitioner was valid or not made in 1973, is not a question to be discussed or decided at this stage when the petitioner having availed the benefit of the same, being in service for more than 30 years, has also received salary pursuant to the said appointment. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he himself cannot claim any benefit by disputing the correctness of his appointment on the ground of being overage in order to dispute his date of birth after more than three decades. In my view, the petitioner has no right either in law or otherwise to dispute the correctness of his appointment at the fag end of his service when he is going to retire, in order to take advantage with respect to his date of birth as recorded in the service book. In the absence of any overwriting, cutting etc. in the service book, it is evident that his date of birth was throughout recorded as 1.12.1944 which was duly acknowledged and signed by the petitioner, not only at the time of entry in service but even thereafter on various occasions. In the absence of any overwriting, cutting etc. in the service book, it is evident that his date of birth was throughout recorded as 1.12.1944 which was duly acknowledged and signed by the petitioner, not only at the time of entry in service but even thereafter on various occasions. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner that he was not aware of the said entry in 1973 or immediately thereafter is incorrect and false. 9. Law in respect to correction in date of birth is well settled that such a claim cannot be entertained after a long time and particularly at the fag end of retirement. The tendency of the employees of disputing date of birth at the fag end of retirement has been seriously deprecated by the Apex Court time and again and it would be useful to refer some of such authorities on the subject. 10. In Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. M. Hayagreev Sharma, 1990 (2) SCC 682 , the Apex Court held that the date of birth recorded in the service book cannot be altered after long time and that too at the fag end of retirement. In Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and others v. Rangadhar Mallik, 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 763, it was held that representation made for correction in date of birth near about at the time of superannuation shall not be entertained. The aforesaid law was reiterated in Union of India v. Hari Ram Singh, 1993 (2) SCC 162 and the Apex Court held "A Government servant, who has declared his age at initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in position of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded 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.” The Court deprecated the practice of entertaining representations or claim of the employees with respect to correction of date of birth after long time and particularly at the time of retirement on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service book. The same view was reiterated in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 155; birth State of Tamilnadu v. T.V. Venugopalan, 1994 (6) SCC 302 and State of Orissa v. Ramanath Patnaik, 1997 (5) SCC 181 . It was held that when the entry was made in the service book when the employee was in service and he did not make any attempt to get the entries corrected, any amount of evidence produced subsequently particularly at the time of retirement would be of no consequences and should not be entertained. The above position was also noticed with approval in State of U.P. and others v. Smt. Gulaichi, 2003 (6) SCC 483 and all the aforesaid judgments have been referred to and followed recently, in State of Gujarat and others v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi, 2006 (6) SCC 537 . 11. In view of aforesaid exposition of law and the consistent view taken by the Apex Court as well as this Court that date of birth as recorded in the service book at the time of entering in service, which has been duly endorsed by the employee concerned and he has not taken any step for correction thereof within a reasonable time, no representation or claim should be entertained after a long time and that too, particularly, at the fag end when he is going to retire on the basis of date of birth recorded in his service book, I do not find any merit in this writ petition warranting interference with the directions of the authorities for retiring the petitioner on 30.11.2004. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to any relief. The writ petition, thus, lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with cost which is quantified to Rs. 5,000/-. ————