Order The present writ petition has been preferred for correction of date of birth. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 4th January, 1953 on the basis of a certificate issued in the Matriculation examination. This certificate is annexed at Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition. This certificate was issued in the year 1971. The petitioner has joined the services with the respondents in the year 1973 and the incorrect date of birth of the petitioner has been incorporated in the service records as 1st January, 1951. Thus, in fact the petitioner's correct date of retirement is 4th January, 2013, whereas, as per incorrect date of birth, petitioner's date of retirement will be 1st January, 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey vs. M/s B.C.C.L. through Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad & Ors. reported in 2007(3) JCR 681 (Jhr) [ : 2007(3) JLJR 726 (FB)] as well as he is also relying upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No. 401 of 2009 dated 18th August, 2010. Copies of these judgments are also given to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid judgments, correct date of birth of the petitioner, on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate should be incorporated with the respondents, in the service records of the petitioner and, therefore the correct date of retirement of the petitioner is 4th January, 2013. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has already been filed, wherein, it has been stated that in the service records of the petitioner, his date of birth is mentioned as 1st January, 1951. Never any objection has been raised by the petitioner and at much belated stage, this petition has been preferred and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstance of the case:- (i) 'It appears from the facts of the case that the present petitioner was appointed as Pump Operator with the respondents in the year 1973. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstance of the case:- (i) 'It appears from the facts of the case that the present petitioner was appointed as Pump Operator with the respondents in the year 1973. (ii) It also appears from Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition that the petitioner's Matriculation Certificate is of the year 1971 and it reveals the petitioner's date of birth as 4th January, 1953. (iii) It also appears that there is verification of this Certificate by the respondents from the concerned Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, Bihar and as per the respondents, the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in the Certificate at Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition is true and correct and Matriculation Certificate, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition, is also true and correct. (iv) The decision rendered by this Court as reported in 2007(3) JCR 681 (Jhr.)(FB) especially in paragraphs 27 to 29 read as under:- "27. In these decisions, though it is observed that the employee will not normally be permitted to apply for change of his date of birth at the fag end of his service career, the Supreme Court clearly held that if the Court is fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed and when a clear case, relating to the date of birth, is made out on the basis of clinching materials, then necessary direction to make a declaration of the said date of birth can be given. 28, In this case, as indicated above, it cannot be said that the claim has been made only at the fag end of the service. On the other hand, some of the records of the Company, Identity Card and Seva Abhilekh, which have been issued immediately after appointment, would indicate that his date of birth had been mentioned as 1.7.1951 as reflected in the Matriculation Certificate. Therefore, above decisions cited by the counsel for the respondents dealing with Claim at the fag end would not be of any help to the respondents. 29. Therefore, above decisions cited by the counsel for the respondents dealing with Claim at the fag end would not be of any help to the respondents. 29. In view of the above discussion, our answer to the question raised in this case is as follows:- "The date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated by the Education Board is a conclusive proof of age and no other records, including service records as both the parties are governed by Implementation Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III" In view of this decision and also keeping in mind the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 18th August, 2010 in L.P.A. No.401 of 2009, it also appears that the correct date of birth of the• petitioner is 4th January, 1953 instead of 1st January, 1951 and thus correct date of retirement will be 4th January, 2013 instead of 1st January, 2011. (v) As per Clause Instruction No.76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-III dated 24th May, 1988, which is a bilateral agreement entered into between the Company and the Union and this deals with the procedure for verification of the age of the employee, which reads as under:- "Implementation Instruction No. 76 Procedure for Determination/ Verification of Age of Employees (A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment (i) Matriculates In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination the date of birth recorded in the said Certificate, shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances." And as per Clause 76(B) of the said Instruction which provides for the review of determination of date of birth. Clause 76(B) reads as under:- "(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees (i)(a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle pass certificate issued by Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the above Boards should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Board/Institutions prior to the date of employment." In view of this clause, if the correct date of birth is mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate, even as per the verification report at Annexure-3, it ought to have been inserted in the service records of the petitioner, as maintained by the respondents. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I hereby allow this writ petition and 4th January. 1953 will now be mentioned as correct date of birth of the petitioner with the service records, as maintained by the respondents and correspondingly date of retirement will be calculated by the respondents. 6. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of. .