Judgment : This writ petition is filed by Gundlaboina Yellaiah with a prayer to issue a writ, direction or order, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing letter in R.No.RG-2/G.D.K.8A/36/28, dated 02.01.2008 directing the petitioner to retire from service by 31.01.2009 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a casual worker in GDK No.7 & 7A in the respondents company on 18.02.1975. According to him, his age was recorded as 24 years as on 15.01.1975 in all the relevant service records and accordingly, the respondents issued identity card to him. He was promoted to Badili Filler and later further promoted as Coal Filler. Once he was removed from service in the year 2001. He raised Industrial Dispute and the dispute was taken on file by the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani as I.D.No.70 of 2004. The I.D. proceedings went in favour of the petitioner andconsequently, the respondents reinstated him in service as Coal Filler afresh. The respondents challenged the order passed in I.D.No.70 of 2004 by filing W.P.No.7852 of 2006. The said writ petition is stated to be pending. While so, the respondents issued proceedings dated 02.01.2008 whereunder the petitioner has been informed that he will be completing 60 years age as on 06.01.2009 and he will be retiring from service on 31.01.2009. The said letter is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, Sri N. Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel of Singareni Collieries Company Limited received notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 4. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. One T.Venkateswar Rao, Colliery Manager of GDK No.8A Incline, Ramagundam Area, has sworn to the counter- affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the age of the petitioner was shown as 33 years as on 06.01.1982 and therefore, the petitioner has to retire from service on 31.01.2009 and accordingly, proceedings came to be issued. Paras.6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit need to be noted and they are thus: "6. That with regard to various allegations made in the affidavit especially in Para.3, it is necessary to bring out the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 2001 after a detailed enquiry with regard to unauthorized absenteeism in the year 1999. Paras.6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit need to be noted and they are thus: "6. That with regard to various allegations made in the affidavit especially in Para.3, it is necessary to bring out the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 2001 after a detailed enquiry with regard to unauthorized absenteeism in the year 1999. In the said year out of a possible of 180 musters at least the petitioner had put in only 18 musters for which a detailed charge sheet been given and explanation called for and after a detailed enquiry he was dismissed from his services. Questioning the order of dismissal the petitioner had approached the Industrial Tribunal by way of I.D.No.70 of 2004 and the Tribunal was pleased to pass an award and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into services afresh. As the award passed being contrary to law the same was questioned by this respondent by filing a Writ Petition No.7852 of 2006 which is pending before this Hon'ble Court. 7. I submit that since the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1999 and in view of the Award passed in ID No.70 of 2004 pending finalization of the W.P., the petitioner was reinstated and he was medically examined in the year 2006 wherein his age was entered as 33 years as on 06.01.1982. The petitioner had also affixed his signature in acceptance of the determination of his age. Assuming though not admitting the petitioner had any grievance he should have raised his objections at the time of medical examination rather than consenting to his date of birth as 33 years as on 06.01.1982 whereby he has to retire on 31.01.2009. Thus, the impugned letter No.RG.2/GDK.8A/36/28 dated 02.01.2008 informing the petitioner that he has toretire on 31.01.2009 meets requirement of Law." 5. When the writ petition came up admission hearing, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aged 24 years as on 15.01.1975 and his age was incorrectly recorded in the service records by the respondents and therefore, necessary application was made by the petitioner for rectification of the same. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aged 24 years as on 15.01.1975 and his age was incorrectly recorded in the service records by the respondents and therefore, necessary application was made by the petitioner for rectification of the same. He would further contend that the action of the respondents in not rectifying the entries in the service register with regard to date of birth is not legal and proper and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the respondent to correct the entries in the service register of the petitioner. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Khan v. U.P.Power Corpn. Ltd. (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 80 In the said decision, a mistake was crept in while recording the date of births in the service register of two persons, who bear similar names. Such is not the situation in the case on hand. Therefore, the cited case has no application to the facts of the case on hand. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Company submits that the age of the petitioner has been consistently shown as 33 years as on 06.01.1982 in the service register and in Form-B register which is a statutory one under Rules 48(3), 51 and 77 of the Mines Rules, 1955. He also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyd. v. V.N.Reddy 2006 (5) ALD 492 (DB), wherein it has been held that at the fag end of his career, an employee cannot be allowed to raise a dispute regarding his date of birth. 9. The respondents placed on record the Photostat copy of the service register and Form-B Register maintained under the Mines Rules, 1955. The entries in the service register as well as in the Form-B Register clearly indicate that the petitioner was aged 33 years as on 06.01.1982. The petitioner signed in the relevant columns of the entries. The petitioner having accepted the correctness of the entries cannot be permitted to dispute the same at the fag end of his service. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same liable to be dismissed. 10. The petitioner signed in the relevant columns of the entries. The petitioner having accepted the correctness of the entries cannot be permitted to dispute the same at the fag end of his service. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.