ORDER R.R. Prasad, J. 1. As per the case of the petitioner he was initially appointed on 1.4.1973 in the establishment of Central Coal Field Limited. At the time of his appointment, date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 9.1.1951. Subsequently, in the year 1986-87 service excerpt containing particulars of the petitioner including the date of appointment and the date of birth, was served so that objection be taken with respect to particulars if recorded incorrectly. In the service excerpt, date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 9.1.1951 which had correctly been recorded and hence, no objection was raised by the petitioner. As per the entry of the date of birth, petitioner was supposed to retire on his superannuation in the year 2011 but suddenly a notice dated 7.3.2005 was communicated to the petitioner whereby it was intimated to the petitioner that due date of superannuation is 31.1.2006 as the date of birth as recorded is 9.1.1946. On receiving the same, the petitioner made representation taking objection that date of birth has wrongly been recorded as 9.1.1946 as the correct date of birth is 9.1.1951 which had been accepted by the respondent while serving the service excerpt. But no order was passed, rather the petitioner was made to retire on 31.1.2006. Under this situation, this writ application has been filed wherein prayer has been made to quash the notice dated 7.3.2005 issued by the Project Officer, Sounda 'D' Colliery, Central Coal Field Limited, respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure 2 intimating therein the date of retirement as 31.1.2006 and further to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue in service till January, 2011 and to give all consequential benefits. 2. Stand of the respondents as has been taken in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner on being appointed on 1.4.1973 was posted at Saunda 'D' Colliery under Barka Sayal Area as Trammer and at the time of opening of the service record, date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 29 years as on 9.1.1975 wherein petitioner had put his thumb impression. Age of the petitioner at the time of opening of the service record was assessed by the Age Committee. Age of the petitioner at the time of opening of the service record was assessed by the Age Committee. Accordingly, date of birth was recorded as 2.1.1946 in the Statutory 'B' Form Register over which petitioner's thumb impression is there denoting the acceptance of the date of birth by the petitioner. In due course, superannuation notice dated 7.7.2005 was issued to the petitioner intimating therein about the date of superannuation as 31.1.2006. Accordingly, the petitioner got retired on 31.1.2006 and thereupon the petitioner made representation for release of his gratuity without taking any objection over his retirement on superannuation. Still this writ application has been filed for directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue in service till January, 2011 on the basis of entry made in the service excerpt as 9.1.1951 but said date in view of the entry made in service record as also in 'B' Form Register apparently appears to be incorrect and therefore, this writ application is fit to be dismissed. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 9.1.1951 in the service excerpt and thereby petitioner was supposed to retire in the year 2011 but the authority without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter, made the petitioner to retire on 31.1.2006 and hence this action of the respondent is not only arbitrary, illegal but it is also against the principle of natural justice and therefore, the decision of the authority under which the petitioner was made to retire on 31.1.2006 is quite illegal. 4. Learned Counsel in support of her submission that any change made in the date relating to date of birth without giving any show cause is quite bad has referred to a decision rendered in a case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967)IILLJ266SC . 5. Learned Counsel further submits that it is true that the petitioner on being made to retire did receive the amount of gratuity but that will not come in the way in any manner in seeking relief as sought for as the petitioner does have fundamental right under the Constitution when the date of birth has been changed by the authority without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. 6. 6. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded in the service excerpt as 9.1.1951 but the same, according to the respondent, is incorrect, rather the correct date is 9.1.1946 as the age of the petitioner was assessed as 29 years as on 9.1.1975 which was recorded in the service record. The same date has been incorporated in the Statutory 'B' Form Register. Both the documents bear thumb impression of the petitioner and under this situation, it can never be said that the petitioner all on a sudden was intimated about the date of birth as 9.1.1946 under notice dated 7.7.2005 by which the petitioner was communicated about the date of his superannuation as 31.1.2006. The petitioner on getting the said notice never challenged it to be bad, rather the petitioner after accepting the date of birth as 9.1.1946 in his application as contained in Annexure A, accepted the amount of gratuity. After receiving the amount of gratuity, this writ application has been filed claiming the date of retirement as January, 2011 on the basis of entry made in the service excerpt but no explanation whatsoever has been given by the petitioner about the date of entry made in the service record as also in Statutory 'B' Form Register which will have certainly over-ridding effect over the other documents containing date of birth whereas it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that the date of birth has wrongly been mentioned in the service excerpt. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have come to this Court with a clinching evidence showing the date of birth as has been claimed by the petitioner, though in such type of the case where date of birth is in dispute, one needs to establish date of birth by clinching evidence. In this regard, I may refer to a case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (West Bengal) v. Shiv Kumar Dusadh AIR 2001 SC 72 where it has been held as under: The date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee but for the employer also. On the length of service put in by the employee depends the quantum of retiral benefits he would be entitled to. On the length of service put in by the employee depends the quantum of retiral benefits he would be entitled to. Therefore, while determining the dispute in such matters Courts should bear in mind that a change of the date of birth long after joining service, particularly when the employee is due to retire shortly which will upset the date recorded in the service records maintained in due course of administration should not generally be accepted. In such a case the burden is heavy on the employee who comes to the Court with the case that the date of birth in the service record maintained by the employer is untrue and incorrect. The burden can be discharged only by producing acceptable evidence of a clinching nature. 7. So far the decision rendered in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (supra) referred to on behalf of the petitioner is concerned it is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case the date of birth of the petitioner had been changed on the basis of enquiry made by the authority but the copy of the enquiry report, had not been given and under this situation, the order under which the petitioner was made to retire was found bad being violative of principle of natural justice, but here, in the instant case as has been stated above, petitioner's thumb impression appears to be there on the service record as also on Form 'B' Register opened must before the issuance of the impugned notice communicating about the date of superannuation containing date of birth on the basis of which the petitioner was made to retire on January, 2006. 8. Under this situation, I do not find any merit in this application. Hence, this writ application is dismissed. Application dismissed.