JUDGMENT Prayer in this writ application is for quashing the letter No. BCCL/Moc./2008/381 dated-01.06.2008 (Annexure-5), whereby the petitioner was informed of the date of his retirement as 30.11.2008. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the Respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service of the Company till he attains the age up to 60 years as per his actual date of birth i.e. 21.02.1951. 2. Petitioner had entered in the service of the Respondent-Company, on 05.03.1980. At the time of his appointment, he was examined by the Medical Board, which had assessed his age as 29 years as on 21.02.1980 and accordingly, his date of birth was entered as 21.02.1951 in his service records including the Form B Register. Upon his appointment, he was allotted the Employee Personal Number 01110550 and Identity Card as well as P.A.N. Card mentioning the same date of birth. 3. While he remained in continuous service all along, he was served with the impugned letter, whereby he was informed that the date of birth in his service records was mentioned as 03.11.1948 and accordingly, his retirement date would be 30.11.2008. The petitioner lodged his protest on 29.12.2004, requesting necessary correction by maintaining the same date of birth as entered in his Matriculation Certificate and as recorded in the Form B Register. His representation was never answered and on the contrary, he was served by the impugned letter. 4. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the action of the Respondents is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction athe Respondents cannot be allowed to change the date of birth at the fag end of the petitioner’s service and that too behind his back. It is further submitted that such act is illegal also on account of the fact that prior to the proposed change of his date of birth, the petitioner was not served with any show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel would emphasize that the Form B Register is a statutory document and the entries made therein, particularly concerning the date of birth, is binding not only on the employee but also on the employer. 5. Per contra, the stand taken by the Respondents, denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner is as follows: - (i) The petitioner was appointed as Mining Apprentice at Jairam Gope Colliery under the Respondents-B.C.C.L. on 05.03.1980. 5. Per contra, the stand taken by the Respondents, denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner is as follows: - (i) The petitioner was appointed as Mining Apprentice at Jairam Gope Colliery under the Respondents-B.C.C.L. on 05.03.1980. (ii) At the time of his appointment, the petitioner had declared himself to be a matriculate and also having passed the B. Sc. Part I Examination, conducted by the University of Bihar, Muzaffarpur in June, 1968. (iii) On the basis of his educational qualification of being B.Sc. Part I passed, he was allowed promotions from time to time. (iv) The Matriculation Certificate as claimed by the petitioner, to have been submitted by him, was not available in the official records and therefore, the Respondents had called upon the petitioner by the letters dated 28.07.2005 and 18.06.2007 (Annexure-D & E respectively) to produce his matriculation certificate but the petitioner did not respond. (v) Upon the petitioner’s failure to produce his matriculation certificate, the Deputy Personal Manager of the Respondent-Company, upon enquiries, was informed that the petitioner had passed his matriculation examination from the Lodhana High School and on the basis of the information furnished by the Headmaster of the School, the General Manager ( P & IR), B.C.C.L., Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad by his letter dated 21.03.2009, sought information of the petitioner’s date of birth recorded in the Register of the Secondary School Examination Board. (vi) In response, the Assistant Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, Patna by his letter dated-24.03.2009 (Annexure-H) had confirmed that the date of birth of the petitioner as per the Board’s Register, is 03.11.1948 and also that he had passed his matriculation examination in the year 1965 (Annual). (vii) This was the same date, as admitted and acknowledged by the petitioner in his hand and signature in Form A in the C.M.P.F. declarations. As such, on the failure of the petitioner to produce his Matriculation Certificate, the confirmation made by the Assistant Secretary (Vigilance) of the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and the petitioner’s own admission in the Form A of the C.M.P.F. declarations was treated as the correct date of birth and recorded accordingly for assessment of the petitioner’s date of retirement from service. 6. 6. In his rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the Respondents, the petitioner has not assigned any reason as to why he has failed to produce his Matriculation certificate in response to the several demands made by the Respondents. In stead, he has sought to rely upon the entry made in the Statutory Form B Register. 7. Even though, the entries made in the statutory Form B Register are significant and relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the date of birth of the employee, the entries regarding the date of birth in the statutory Form B Register are amenable to correction in the event, it is established that the original entries are incorrect. In fact, the Respondent-B.C.C.L. through its Circulars issued from time to time, had given privilege to its employees to get rectified the entries of the date of birth in their service records. In the instant case, the petitioner appears to have intentionally failed to produce his matriculation certificate for the reasons known to him. From the informations obtained by the Respondents at their own level, based upon the communication received from the Assistant Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, the petitioner’s actual date of birth has been ascertained as 03.11.1948. This has not been controverted or disputed by the petitioner. 8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner cannot rely upon and claim any right on the basis of the incorrect entries made in the Form B Register and dispute the propriety of the impugned letters. 9. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.