Judgment P.K.Jaiswal,J. ( 1. ) Heard. Grievance put-forth by the petitioner in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against an action of respondents whereby they have declined to rectify the date of birth recorded in Form B. ( 2. ) Facts briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk Grade-II with the respondent No. 1 Western Coalfields Limited on 18.7.1975. At the time of his initial appointment "16.7.1952" was wrongly entered as his date of birth in Form PS-III(Annexure-R-2)and Form PS-IV Annexure-R-3). It is submitted that at the time of entry in service his date of birth was 1.4.1956 whereas the same was wrongly recorded as 16.7.1952. In support of the said contention he drew my attention to the Scholars Register which is maintained by Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jaisinghnagar,District Shahdol(M.P.) and duplicate copy of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination issued in April, 1983. Annexure-P-4 is Form B. In column No.4 of this form his date of birth is recorded as 16.7.1952. Annexure-P-5 is letter dated 7.6.1987 issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner in which the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 16.7.1952. During all these years petitioner never raised any dispute regarding his date of birth though he was in service since 18.7.1975 and by Annexure-P-5 letter of respondent No. 2 dated 7.6.1987 he came to know in the year 1987 itself that his date of birth is recorded as 16.7.1952 but he never challenged the same As per para 5.6 of the writ petition, he made a representation on 25.12.2001 and requested the authorities for correction of his date of birth, but no acknowledgment of the department nor any postal receipt has been filed to prove that representation was actually made on 25.12.2001. Similar is the fact of representation dated 13.11.2002. After the period of 34 years on 17.12.2009 he for the first time made a so-called representation for correction of his date of birth Annexure-P-8(a) and much prior to the date of said representation filed this writ petition on 3.3.2009. It is very strange that along with writ petition he filed copy of representation dated 17.12.2009 and also made such averment in para 5.7 of the writ petition which is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. It is very strange that along with writ petition he filed copy of representation dated 17.12.2009 and also made such averment in para 5.7 of the writ petition which is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. All these facts clearly falsify the stand of the petitioner that in respect of his date of birth he earlier made representations on 25.12.2001 and 13.11.2002 respectively. The last representation dated 17.12.2009 is ante dated because the same could not be filed along with the writ petition which was filed on 3.3.2009. ( 3. ) With the aforesaid pleadings learned counsel for the petitioner submits that correct date of birth of the petitioner is 1.4.1956 and prayed that respondents be directed to correct his date of birth in service record and further direct the respondents to increase service tenure of the petitioner according to his correct date of birth. ( 4. ) The respondents have filed their reply and in para 11 of the reply they denied the receipt of so-called representations. It is contended that the applications were never received by the respondents and neither they appended any seal of the concerned office it is also contended that documents Annexures-P-1 to P-3 were never furnished by the petitioner at the time of his joining the services and hence no credence can be given to these certificates at the fag end of petitioners service. The stand of the respondent-Department is that at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner he has informed the respondent-Department that his date of birth is 16.7. 1952 and on that basis Form B register was filled in, which was counter-signed by him. No objection was raised by the petitioner at the time of filling of the said register. The respondents also filed last pay certificate, PS III and PS IV Forms and all these documents show the petitioners date of birth to be 16.7.1952. All these documents have been counter-signed by the petitioner which clearly goes to show that his date of birth is 16.7.1952. ( 5. ) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that since there was wrong date of birth entered into From B the petitioner preferred representation requesting the respondents to correct the date of birth in pursuance to the provisions contained in Implementation Instructions issued by the respondents. ( 5. ) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that since there was wrong date of birth entered into From B the petitioner preferred representation requesting the respondents to correct the date of birth in pursuance to the provisions contained in Implementation Instructions issued by the respondents. The petitioner relies upon the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.6913/2009 (S)(Mohd. Shabbir Qureshi v. Chief Managing Director, Western Coalfields Limited and others) decided on 20th July, 2009 to substantiate the contention that the respondents are duty bound to adhere to Implementation Instruction No.76. It is accordingly urged that the respondents be directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of duplicate matriculation certificate issued in the year 1983. ( 6. ) On the other hand, the respondents opposed the plea put-forth by the petitioner and contended that the petitioners date of birth is rightly recorded in the record maintained by the department. It is further contended that the petition has been filed at a belated stage and the date of birth as to what it should be is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be decided in a writ petition. Clause B of the Implementation Instruction No. 76 lays down procedure for determination/ verification of date of birth in respect of existing employees. The procedure has been prescribed by the respondent-Department under National Coal Wage Agreement-II. III and IV for determination/verification of the age of the employees and for resolution of the dispute of cases of service record. The respondents are disputing the duplicate Higher Secondary Mark-sheet annexed along with the writ petition and contended that on the basis of material supplied by the petitioner at the time of his joining the date of birth is correctly recorded as 16.7.1952 and since 1975 till 3.3,2009 no objection was ever raised by the petitioner, therefore, after period of 34 years the same cannot be decided in this writ petition nor the decision cited by the petitioner in the case of Mohd. Shabbir Qureshi(supra) will be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. ( 7. ) In the present case the core question is whether the two transfer certificates obtained by the petitioner from the Head Master, Govt. Shabbir Qureshi(supra) will be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. ( 7. ) In the present case the core question is whether the two transfer certificates obtained by the petitioner from the Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Khamdand,district Shahdol to the effect that he prosecuted his studies from Class-6th to Class-8th in which his date of birth is recorded as 1.4.1956, Scholars Certificate of office of Govt. Higher Secondary School,Jaisinghnagar and duplicate copy of the mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination held in 1983 in which the petitioner was declared as failed should be accepted and the date of birth entered therein should be accepted as conclusive. This question is essentially one of fact. Determination of the question requires detailed enquiry into relevant factual matters. If the petitioner was basing his case on these documents then it was incumbent upon him to place evidence on record, materials from which a conclusion can be reasonably drawn that the date of birth as entered in the certificates is the correct one. There is no material on record to show that when these documents were issued to the petitioner, he had produced a copy of the same when he entered service in the respondents in support of his age and if so why was the document not sent with the service records. These are some of the questions consideration of which will depend on the evidence, either oral or documentary to be placed by the parties. These are duplicate copies of the certificates issued by the concerned school and Board of Secondary Education in the year 2004 and 1983, respectively. All these documents were never submitted before the respondents for correction of date of birth. Their authenticity is disputed by the respondents. Implementation Instruction No.76 was issued by the respondents laying down the procedure for determination/verification of the age of the employees in which procedure for determination/verification of age of employees is laid down. Under para A the manner of determination of age at the time of appointment is laid down. Under para B are laid down the procedures to be followed in cases of determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. Under para A the manner of determination of age at the time of appointment is laid down. Under para B are laid down the procedures to be followed in cases of determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. Under sub-para (i) of para B the case of the existing employee having a Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognised University or Board or Middle Form Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction should be treated as the correct date of birth provided the documents are issued by the University/Board prior to the date of the employment. Under sub-para (i)(b) of para B it is provided that mining sirdarship,windup engine or similar other statutory certificate where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Provided that where both the documents mentioned in (i)(a)and (i)(b) above are available the date of birth in (i)(a) will be treated as authentic. In clause (u)of para B it is specifically stated that wherever there is no variation in records such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the management. The management, after being satisfied on the merit of the case will take appropriate steps for corrections through the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board In C D and E the procedures to be followed by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for determination of age of an employee are laid down. Here in the present case transfer certificate(Annex.P-l),Scholars Register (Annex.P-2) and duplicate copy of the mark-sheet of Board of Secondary Education, MP,Bhopal (Annex. P-3) were never submitted before the respondents in appropriate time and the same were kept by the petitioner with himself and for the first time he filed these documents along with the writ petition filed on 3.3.2009. All the records of the Management clearly show that the date of birth of the petitioner is 16.7.1952 and, therefore, at this stage no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, nor these disputed questions of fact can be decided in this writ petition. The petitioner is a workman. Under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 he is having alternative and efficacious remedy for raising a dispute. ( 8. The petitioner is a workman. Under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 he is having alternative and efficacious remedy for raising a dispute. ( 8. ) The petitioner made incorrect statement in para 5.6 of the writ petition and filed a representation which is ante dated and had procured much prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. In the instant case for the first time, more than three decades after the petitioner had entered into service make an application for correction of his date of birth without adducing any reliable documentary evidence in support of his claim and without in any manner explaining as to why the petitioner had taken no action for all these thirty years. He allowed the matter to rest till he neared the age of superannuation. The petitioner slept over his right to get the date of birth altered for more than thirty four years and woke up from his deep slumber on the eve of his retirement only. On these facts no relief as prayed in this petition can be granted to him. The writ petitioner has an alternative remedy of raising a dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ( 9. ) The Apex Court in the case of G,M,Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and others (2000) 8 SCC696 held that in a case where the controversy over the date of birth of an employee has been raised long after joining the service and the matter has engaged the attention of the authority concerned and has been determined by following the procedure prescribed under the service rules or general instructions issued by the employer and it is not the case of the employee that there has been any arithmetical mistake or typographical error patent on the face of the record, the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the decision of the employer. The reason as stated in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and others (supra) is as follows :- "17. The date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee but for the employer also. The reason as stated in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and others (supra) is as follows :- "17. 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. 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, 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. We are constrained to make this observation as we find that in a large number of cases employees who are on the verge of retirement raise a dispute regarding correctness of the date of birth entered in the service record and the courts are inclined to pass an interim order for continuance of such employee beyond the date of superannuation on the basis of the entry of date of birth in the service record. Such a situation cannot be commended for the reason that the court in passing such an interim order grants a relief to the employee even before determining the issue regarding correctness of the date of birth entered in the service record. Such interim orders create various complications. Anticipated vacancy for which the employee next in the line has been waiting does not materialise, on account of which the junior is denied promotion which he has all along been led to believe will be his due on the retirement of the senior." ( 10. ) On the analysis and the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the considered view that belated petition filed by the petitioner at the time of his retirement, suppressing material fact of filing of representation and letter cannot be entertained at this stage and the same is according dismissed with costs. ) On the analysis and the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the considered view that belated petition filed by the petitioner at the time of his retirement, suppressing material fact of filing of representation and letter cannot be entertained at this stage and the same is according dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.3,000/-. Petition dismissed.