JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The challenge herein is to the judgment passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench on 7.9.2010 in O.A. No.721/HP/2010 declining thereby the prayer of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in his service record from 9.8.1950 to 9.8.1958 being stale and having been made at the fag end of his service career. 2. The complaint is that the petitioner is born on 9.8.1958 and so is his date of birth entered in his school leaving certificate, Annexure P-16. Also that in the records maintained by Municipal Corporation, Shimla, his date of birth has been entered as 1.9.1958. Though he is born in the year 1958 and even at the time of his entry in Railway service, he declared his age as 19 years 4 months on 31.12.1977 in medical memo (Annexure P-15) which corresponds to the year 1958, however, the respondents establishment on its own has entered his date of birth in his service record as 9.8.1950 wrongly. He came to know on 8.6.2009 about his date of birth recorded wrongly in his service record on the circulation of list of its employees by the respondent-Management who were due for retirement during the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. Though he made a representation for correction of his date of birth in his service record, however, the respondents failed to respond thereto. 3. The defence of the respondents on the other hand, in a nutshell, is that the date of birth of the petitioner has rightly been entered in his service record prepared on 27.5.1982. His service record/service book was shown to him under ‘personal contact programme’ on 27.7.2007. He even endorsed the service book with the remarks that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded and that his date of birth is 9.8.1958, however, failed to take any steps for correction thereof till 18.10.2009, on which date he made a representation which was rejected on 11.5.2010 and the decision conveyed to him on the same day. 4. He even endorsed the service book with the remarks that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded and that his date of birth is 9.8.1958, however, failed to take any steps for correction thereof till 18.10.2009, on which date he made a representation which was rejected on 11.5.2010 and the decision conveyed to him on the same day. 4. It is significant to note that the petitioner impending his retirement on 31.8.2010 had initially preferred O.A. No.904/HP/2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.7.2010 (Annexure P-4) with the following directions:-“In view of this factual position as above, without recording any finding on the issues raised in the O.A. and considering the fact that applicant is sought to be retired on 31.8.2010, it would be in the fitness of things to direct the respondents, particularly respondent No.2 to depute some responsible officer to ascertain correct date of birth of the applicant from the Registrar of Births and Deaths maintained by Municipal Corporation, Shimla within a period of two weeks from today and applicant can also accompany him so that factual position comes out and after such verification the respondent No.2 is directed to pass necessary order about the correct date of birth and probable date of retirement of the applicant within a period of two weeks thereafter as there is an urgency in the matter as on the basis of existing entry of date of birth, the applicant is going to be retired on 31.8.2010”. 5. Consequently, the respondent has reconsidered this matter, however, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 25.8.2010 vide order Annexure P-9. It is this order which was again assailed by the petitioner before Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No.721/HP/2010 aforesaid, however, unsuccessfully because the act and conduct of the petitioner having remained slept over the matter for years together and approached for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his service career heavily weighed in the mind of learned Tribunal and consequently, the application he preferred, was dismissed vide judgment, Annexure P-11, impugned in this writ petition. 6. 6. This Court in the exercise of its powers of judicial review has to determine with the help of record as to whether the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of this case in its right perspective and has misread and misconstrued the material available on record and if so the findings as recorded are perverse or erroneous and that the impugned judgment is not legally sustainable. 7. Before we advert to the records, it is desirable to take note of para -225 of Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. I, which deals with there requirement of declaration of date of birth by papers on before entering railway service and alteration, if any, permissible in such declared date of birth at any subsequent stage. The same reads as follows:- “Every person, on entering railway service, shall declare his date of birth which shall not differ from any declaration expressed or implied for any public purpose before entering railway service. In the case of literate staff, the declared date of birth shall be recorded by a senior railway servant and witnessed by another railway servant. The date of birth as recorded in accordance with these rules shall be held to be binding and no alteration of such date shall ordinarily be permitted subsequently. It shall however, be open to the President in the case of a Group A & B railway servant, and a General Manager in the case of a Group C & D railway servant to cause the date of birth to be altered. i. Where in his opinion it had been falsely stated by the railway servant to obtain an advantage otherwise in admissible, provided that such alteration shall not result in the railway servant being retained in service longer than if the alteration had not been made, or ii. where, in the case of illiterate staff, the General Manager is satisfied that a clerical error has occurred, or iii. where a satisfactory explanation (which should not be entertained after completion of the probation period, or three years service, whichever is earlier) of the circumstances in which the wrong date came to be entered is furnished by the railway servant concerned, together with the statement of any previous attempts made to have the record amended.” 8. where a satisfactory explanation (which should not be entertained after completion of the probation period, or three years service, whichever is earlier) of the circumstances in which the wrong date came to be entered is furnished by the railway servant concerned, together with the statement of any previous attempts made to have the record amended.” 8. It is seen from the perusal of (iii) supra that railway servant m a y approach for alteration in date of birth well before the completion of the probation period or within three years of service, whichever is earlier, that too, with satisfactorily explanation to the circumstances under which the wrong date came to be entered and at tempts, if any, previously made to get there cord amended. 9. Adverting to the settled legal principles in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Others vs. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp. (1), SCC 155, the apex court while elaborating the scope of interference by the Courts in a case of this nature where under the rules time limit is the essence for m a king application for correction, has held that the service rule s having binding force of law may be strictly followed and where no rule is in existence in that case also an application made with in a reasonable time should only be considered. The law so laid down in this judgment reads as follows:- “As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the Court or the Tribunal must be 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 within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth.” 10. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth.” 10. Similar is the ratio of the judgment again that of 11. The a p ex court ha s again held in Union of India the apex court in State of Punjab & Others vs. S.C. Chadha, (2004) 3 SCC 394 . versus Harnam Singh,(1993) 2 SCC, 162 as under:- “7. A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied to by the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire.” 12. In a case titled State of Haryana Vs. Satish Kumar Mittal & another, AIR 2010 SC 3312 where the Punjab Financial Volume –I ( Haryana First Amendment) Rules, 2001 provides for making an application for correction of date of birth by a Government servant within two year s, the apex court has held that no application for correction of date of birth made after the prescribed period can be entertained. 13. It has again been held by the apex court in State of Gujarat & others Vs. Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi, AIR 2006 SC 2735 that an application for correction of date of birth in service record can only be entertained in case made well within the period prescribed there to and not after decades, especially, on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. 14. It has also been held so by the apex court in Chief Medical Officer Vs. Khadeer Khadri, AIR 1995, SC 850 and Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs. M. Manickam & others, (2011) 9 SCC 245 . 15. In the light of the provisions contained under para-225 of Indian Railway Establishment Code and the case law discussed supra, the only and irresistible conclusion would be that the issue thereby is covered against the petitioner for the reason that he entered in the service of Indian Railway as Box Porter on regular basis on 7.1.1978. We have perused the original service book of the petitioner produced before us, which reveals that the same has been prepared on 27.5.1982. His date of birth in the service book is entered as 9.8.1950. There is neither any cutting nor any over-writing or any kind of interpolation in this entry. We have perused the original service book of the petitioner produced before us, which reveals that the same has been prepared on 27.5.1982. His date of birth in the service book is entered as 9.8.1950. There is neither any cutting nor any over-writing or any kind of interpolation in this entry. The plea raised on behalf of the respondents that during ‘personal contact programme’, the petitioner has endorsed the service book with the remarks that his date of birth is 9th August, 1958 and that the same as such is wrongly recorded, seems to be plausible for the reason that the endorsement to this effect is dated 27.7.2007 and is initialed by him. What to speak of making an application for correction of his date of birth as per the provisions in the Railway Code, supra, i.e. either before completion of the period of probation or within three years service, whichever is earlier, he even failed to make any such request on coming to know about his date of birth recorded as 9.8.1950 in the year 2007 also because he made representation, Annexure P-3 in this behalf for the first time on 18/19.9.2009 which stands rejected vide order dated 11.5.2010, Annexure R-G. We did not find any irregularity or illegality having been committed by the respondents establishment in rejecting the same and also in the judgment impugned before us in the present writ petition for the reason that no such prayer could have been entertained being not made well within the time prescribed under the Indian Railway Establishment Code, supra nor being supported by any such evidence irrefutable and clinching in nature warranting correction of date of birth. 16. The evidence sought to be pressed in service by the petitioner is consisting of date of birth certificate issued by the Head Master, D.A.V. High School, Shimla, Annexure P-13, abstract of his service particulars, Annexure P-14, school leaving certificate Annexure P-16, seniority lists Annexures P-17 and P-18, letter Annexure P-19 of Station Superintendent, Northern Railway, Shimla, abstract of the information with respect to staff position at Shimla Annexure P-21, information with respect to SC/ST category staff, Annexure P-23 and his service particulars forwarded to head office at Ambala Cantt, Annexure P-24. True it is that in all these documents, the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered as 9.8.1958, however, he has failed to produce irrefutable proof and clinching evidence to show that his date of birth is 9.8.1958 alone and none else. To the contrary, against entry No.1033 in the Births and Deaths Register maintained in Municipal Corporation, Shimla, which he claims to be his birth entry, his date of birth has been recorded as 1.9.1958, i.e. different to the one he claims to be his actual date of birth. In the record of school, no doubt, his date of birth is entered as 9.8.1958, however, on what basis, he failed miserably to produce any link evidence on record. Learned counsel during the course of arguments has heavily relied upon Annexure P-15 the medical memo, which seems to have been submitted by the petitioner for getting his medical examination conducted before entering in Railway service. True it is that in this document his age as on the date of this document has been recorded as 19 years 4 months and the same corresponds to the year 1958, however, on what basis such age was disclosed, there is no link evidence. On the other hand, Annexure R-U produced by the respondents alongwith CMP No.4307 of 2012 reveals that before his appointment as Box Porter in the Indian Railway, he was working as casual labourer on the establishment of its Kalka office with effect from 12.7.1976. He could have not been engaged as a casual labourer well before attaining the age of 18 years if his year of birth is taken as 1958. In that event he being not 18 years of age in 1976 could have not been engaged as casual labourer. 17. Otherwise also, the Registration of Birth and Death Act came into being in the year 1969. Himachal Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules came into being in the year 2003. The petitioner having been born in the year 1950 or 1958 under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 was required to make entry of his name in the records of Municipal Corporation, Shimla within a period of 15 years from the date of initial entry of his date of birth. Neither he nor his parents, however, have ever taken any such steps. Neither he nor his parents, however, have ever taken any such steps. On this score also, the so called entry in Municipal Corporation records cannot be believed to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. On the other hand, apart from the entry of date of birth of the petitioner as 9.8.1950 in the service book, his date of birth is reflected as such in the latest seniority lists, Annexures R-C, R-D and R-E. It cannot be believed that these seniority lists were never circulated by the respondent-Management in its Shimla office, as Shimla office falls under the jurisdiction of Ambala Division and the endorsement amply reveals that the same were circulated for the information of all concerned. 19. The onus to prove that his date of birth is wrongly entered was upon the petitioner, as is held by the apex court in R. Kirubakaran’s case, supra. He however, has miserably failed to discharge the same. The present is thus a case where for want of cogent and clinching evidence, the Tribunal below has rightly declined the relief sought by the petitioner. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with such findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment. 20. It is again well settled that a prayer for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt by the High Courts/Tribunals keeping in view the interest of the public servant concerned alone, but also chain of reactions, more particularly, the prospectus of others waiting from years together for their promotion. The observation qua this aspect of the matter made by the apex court in R. Kirubakaran’scase, supra reads as follows: “7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth”. 21. Similar is the view of the matter again taken by the apex court in S.C. Chadha’s and Harnam Singh’s cases, cited supra Not only this, but the apex Court in this judgment has deprecated the practice of granting an interim relief or continuation in service in such cases . The observations in this behalf also read as follows : “Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation is service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior.” 22. The legal principles supra also do not substantiate the petitioner’s claim and rather dissuade this Court fro m taking any other and further view of the matter than the one taken by the learned Tribunal. Above all, the qualification of the petitioner is up to 9th standard. He is thus not an illiterate person. The legal principles supra also do not substantiate the petitioner’s claim and rather dissuade this Court fro m taking any other and further view of the matter than the one taken by the learned Tribunal. Above all, the qualification of the petitioner is up to 9th standard. He is thus not an illiterate person. It cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that he cam e to know about his date of birth recorded wrongly in his service record only on circulation of the retirement list. In a case titled Union of India & others vs . Saroj Bala, AIR 1996 SC 1000 , the petitioner having been born in an educated family and having remained in service for 18 years when allegedly came to know that her date of birth is wrongly entered, the apex court while setting aside the judgment passed by the learned tribunal has held the same wholly unjustified and illegal. In this case also, the petitioner after having put in about 29 years of service had made a representation for correction in his date of birth in the year 2009. His claim has thus been rightly rejected. The apex Court in Burn Standard Company Ltd. Vs. Dina Bandhu Majumandar, AIR 1995, SC 1499 qua this aspect of the matter has held as under:- “Entertainment by High Courts of writ applications made by employees of the Government or its instrumentalities at the fag end of their services and when they are due for retirement from their services, in our view, is unwarranted, it would be so for the reason that no employee can claim a right to correction of birth date and entertainment of such writ applications for correction of dates of birth of some employees of Government or its instrumentalities will mar the chances of promotion of his juniors and prove to be an undue encouragement to the other employees to make similar applications at the fag end of their service careers with the sole object of preventing their retirements when due.” 23. The observations of the apex court in Harnam Singh’s case, cited supra qua this aspect of the matter also reads as follows: “A government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age”. 24. The petitioner, therefore, who woke up from slumber after 29 years of service, is not entitled to correction of his date of birth, as recorded in his service record. The submissions that the present is not a case of correction of date of birth and rather a case where his date of birth is wrongly recorded in his service record by the respondents-establishment, made by learned counsel hardly carries any force as in the written submissions it has been stated in so many unambiguous and unequivocal terms that when the petitioner came to know about the error qua his date of birth in his service record, he approached the respondents for correction thereof. The petitioner cannot thus wriggle out from the rigours of the provisions contained under para-225 of Indian Railway Establishment Code, referred supra. The contentions that the petitioner has successfully proved his date of birth to be 1958 with the help of clinching proof again finds no substance for the reasons recorded hereinabove. 25. The law laid down by the Apex Court in R.K. JangraVersus State of Punjab and Others, 2009(5) SCC 703 is not at all attracted in the given facts and circumstances of this case. The present is also not a case covered under the ratio of the judgment of apex court in Mohd. Yunus Khan Versus U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 80 as the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court that while making entries in his service record, the respondents entered his date of birth wrongly. The present is also not a case covered under the ratio of the judgment of apex court in Mohd. Yunus Khan Versus U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 80 as the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court that while making entries in his service record, the respondents entered his date of birth wrongly. He even failed to produce clinching proof to show that his actual date of birth is 9.8.1958. The present is not even a case where it can be said that the date of birth of the petitioner has correctly been entered in the record of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, as noticed supra. Therefore, the law laid down by the apex Court in CIDCO Versus Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, (2009) 7 SCC 283 has also no application in the case in hand. 26. The petitioner has failed to make out a case to persuade this Court to take a view of the matter contrary to the one already taken by the learned Tribunal below. 27. We, therefore, find no illegality and infirmity whatsoever in the judgment impugned before us in the present writ petition. The same thus needs no interference by this Court. 28. For all the reasons hereinabove we find no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same, however, without there being any order so as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.