ORDER 1. The petitioners before this Court have filed this present petition challenging the award dated 16.12.1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gwalior and also order dated 19.12.2002 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. It has been contended by the petitioners that the husband of respondent No.1 has preferred an application under section 31, 61 and 62 of MPIR Act challenging his retirement dated 4.6.1986 and it was stated therein by the deceased employee that he has been retired four years prior to his age of retirement. The Labour Court after appreciation of evidence has passed an award holding that the workman was entitled to continue upto 30th April, 1992 and has directed payment of wages from 1.12.1987 to 30.4.1992 against which an appeal was preferred before the Industrial Court as provided under section 65 of the M.P. Industrial Relation Act, which has been dismissed and therefore, the petitioners have filed this present writ petition for quashing the award dated 16.12.1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gwalior and also order dated 19.12.2002 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. In the present case the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into the service as declared by the deceased employee was 4.11.1929, the aforesaid date of birth was recorded in the service book and the deceased employee has signed the entry in the service book. The award is based upon a school leaving certificate in which the date of birth is mentioned as 4.4. 1934. The petitioners-M.P. Road Transport Corporation keeping in view the entry in the service book in respect of the date of birth as 4.11.1929 has retired the husband of the respondent w.e.f. 4.6.1986. However, by the impugned award, the date of birth has been treated to be 4th April 1934 and payment of back wages from 1.12.1987 to 30.4.1992 has been directed to be paid to the workman. In the present case the impugned award has been passed only on the basis of mark sheet of 10th class. The standing orders framed by the M.P. Road Transport Corporation governs the service conditions of the employees and the standing order l4A prescribes the age of retirement to be 58 years. In the present case the impugned award has been passed only on the basis of mark sheet of 10th class. The standing orders framed by the M.P. Road Transport Corporation governs the service conditions of the employees and the standing order l4A prescribes the age of retirement to be 58 years. The standing order l4A(2) and (3) read as under: "For the purpose of Clause 1 the age shall be reckoned by any of the following methods in the order of priority: 1. The date of birth as given by the employee, at the time of his employment and accepted by the Manager. 2. The date of birth as given in Higher Secondary School Certificate or equivalent examinations certificate. 3. The certificate issued by local authority of the place where the employee was borne, on the basis of the record maintained by such authorities or certified copy of the entry in birth and death register in which date of birth is mentioned. 4. The date of birth as declared by the employee in his declaration card for the purpose of membership of the employee's provident fund. Clause (3). Notwithstanding anything contained in the forgoing clause if any dispute arises regarding the date of birth intimated at the time of employment or declared in the declaration card for the purpose of membership of the employees provident fund as the case may be, then the date of birth shall be determined on the basis of school leaving certificate and in its absence the date of birth determined by the registered medical practitioner not below the rank of Civil Surgeon shall be considered as final but any such dispute shall not be entertained within a period of 6 months before the date of retirement." 3. The date of birth declared and signed at the time of entry into service by the husband of the respondent is 4.11.1929 and the same has been accepted by the employer and therefore, the Labour Court has erred in law and facts in changing the date of birth that to after retirement of the employee. The apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and others v. Ramanath Patnaik [( 1997)5 SCC 181], has held that correction of entry of date of birth after retirement is not permissible. The apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and others v. Ramanath Patnaik [( 1997)5 SCC 181], has held that correction of entry of date of birth after retirement is not permissible. A similar view has been expressed by the apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Smt. Gulaichi [AIR 2003 SC 4209], and in the case of State of Uttaranchal and others v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [ (2005) 11 SCC 477 ], the apex Court has held the correction of date of birth after 30 long years to be impermissible. In the present case husband of the respondent was appointed in the year 1953 and in the year 1953 itself he has declared his date of birth as 4.11.1929 and an attempt was made only after retirement for changing the date' of birth and therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is against the settled Principles of Service Jurisprudence. The date of birth entered in the service record and in the service book was duly signed by the employee cannot be altered after retirement as has been done in the present case. Resultantly, the award dated 16.12.1992 ' passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gwalior by which back wages have been granted to the respondent w.e.f. 1.12.1987 to 30.4.1992 is set aside. The petition is allowed, the order dated 16.12.1992 passed by the Labour Court and also order dated 19.12.2002 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed are hereby quashed. 4. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.