JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. Decreeing the suit of the respondent herein-original plaintiff, the trial court declared that the birth date of the plaintiff was 12th August, 1927, and not 2nd January 1925, as entered in the service book. Holding that the entry in his service book regarding the birth date was incorrect, it was further decreed and declared that the plaintiff was entitled to continue in service till last date of August 1987, and accordingly was entitled to draw the pay and other emoluments. The order retiring the petitioner on 31st January 1985 was held to be illegal. 1.1 In appeal before the lower appellate court preferred by the original defendants - who are the appellants herein, the above judgment and decree of the trial court was confirmed except declaring that the plaintiff would be entitled to only 50% back wages. The original defendant namely the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board (now Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited - the appellant herein) and its authorities, therefore, preferred the present Second Appeal before this court. 2. This appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was admitted formulating the following substantial questions of law, "1. Whether both courts below have erred in not appreciating that Gujarat Electricity Board's Service Regulation No.18 did not permit the correction of birth date after an employee had attained the age of 50 years ? 2. Whether both the courts below have erred in not appreciating the fact that the respondent did not submit any documentary evidence to get the birth certificate corrected?. 3. Whether both the courts below have erred in not considering that the respondent had failed even to make an application of correction of the date of birth before he attaining the age of 50 years? 4. Whether both the courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the suit was filed within the period of limitation? 5. Whether the courts below erred in not considering that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for correction of birth date was not maintainable after he had already retired from the service? 3. In order to focus on the questions of law formulated, it is necessary to first advert to the relevant facts. 3.1 The plaintiff was an employee of the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board, serving under the Executive Engineer, G.E.B.(O&M), Junagadh, defendant No.3 on the post of Peon. 3. In order to focus on the questions of law formulated, it is necessary to first advert to the relevant facts. 3.1 The plaintiff was an employee of the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board, serving under the Executive Engineer, G.E.B.(O&M), Junagadh, defendant No.3 on the post of Peon. On the basis of the birth date recorded in his service book at the time of joining the service, he stood retired on 31st January 1985. On 27th March 1987 he instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 232 of 1987 before the court of Civil Judge, Junagadh, pleading that the birth date of 2nd January 1925 as recorded in his service book at the time of entry in service was wrong, and that from the school record of the Primary School at Dodiyala village, where he had studied, it was revealed that the correct birth date was 12th August, 1927. By producing the School Leaving Certificate issued by the said school, it was contended that the correct date of birth was required to be substituted in the service records and on the basis of the said correct birth date, he was entitled to be treated as continued in service beyond 31st January 1985 and the order retiring him was illegal. Along with seeking such a declaration, the plaintiff prayed for payment of salary and other emoluments for the period for which according to him he was entitled to be continued in service. 3.2 The defendants in the written statement (Exh.15) contended that the date of birth mentioned in the service book of the plaintiff since he joined the services under the Board from 01.03.1948 was correctly recorded. It was contended that under the applicable Regulations the plaintiff ought to have got his birth date corrected before completion of 50 years; that the application of the plaintiff could not be considered at the fag end of his service tenure and that he was duly retired. It was also contended that the subsequent claim based on School Register was not acceptable as the same was not trustworthy. The trial court at Exh.16 framed the issue as to whether the correct birth date of the plaintiff was 12th August 1927 and the order retiring him on 31st January 1985 was illegal. Answering the same in affirmative after discussing the evidence, the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Junagadh, decreed the suit as above. The trial court at Exh.16 framed the issue as to whether the correct birth date of the plaintiff was 12th August 1927 and the order retiring him on 31st January 1985 was illegal. Answering the same in affirmative after discussing the evidence, the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Junagadh, decreed the suit as above. The learned 2nd Joint District Judge, Junagadh modified the decree to the extent of 50% back wages as stated hereinabove, partly allowing Regular Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1990. 4. On behalf of the aggrieved appellant Gujarat Urja vikas Nigam Limited, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave contended that a patent error was committed by both the courts below in holding that the birth date of the plaintiff was required to be corrected from one recorded in his service book to one pleaded by him later. He submitted that the plaintiff was duly retired on the basis of the date of birth existed in the service book, and that he instituted the suit two years after retirement. It was further submitted that Service Regulation No. 18 of the Board, provided that the correction of birth date was to be permitted only upto employee completing 50 years of age, and before that a satisfactory proof in respect of the date of birth was produced. It was submitted that though the plaintiff-employee had made request in the year 1977 for correction, he did not produce the requisite documents asked for by the Board and instituted suit after retirement only. He submitted that in the facts of the case, the conditions of the Board Regulation were not satisfied. It was also contended that in any view the employee could not be permitted to change the date of birth at a belated stage of service career and that the plaintiff was already retired on the basis of birth date in his service record. 4.1 In support of submission that claim of the plaintiff for correction of birth date could not be accepted, learned advocate for the appellant relied on the decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. Venugopalan, 1994 (6) SCC 302 , State of Orissa v. Ramanath Patnaik, 1997 (5) SCC 181 , Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh v. Megh Raj Gard, 2010 (6) SCC 482 and State of Haryana v. Satish Kumar Mittal, 2010 (9) SCC 337 . 4.2 Learned advocate for the respondent Mr. 4.2 Learned advocate for the respondent Mr. K.D. Vasavada submitted that the respondent had requested correction of his birth date on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate when he could obtain same. It is submitted that the School Leaving Certificate reflected the correct date of birth and the same was proved by virtue of evidence of the principal of the school wherever it was obtained. He further submitted that even during the tenure of service, the respondent-employee demanded the correction which was evident from Exh.27. According to him, therefore, there was compliance of Regulation No. 18. It was next submitted that on the issue of entitlement of the plaintiff-respondent for correction of birth date, both the courts below came to concurrent finding that the correct date was 12th August 1927 reflected in the school birth register. He submitted that in view of the concurrent findings recorded, this court may not interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the courts below in exercise of limited jurisdiction under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 5. For examining the controversy, the necessary facts may be recalled from the record. When the plaintiff joined the service on 1st March 1948, he got recorded his date of birth in service record to be the 2nd January 1925. On the basis of the said birth date, he stood retired from service with effect from 31.01.1985. His claim in the suit was that his correct date of birth was 27.08.1927. He relied on the School Leaving Certificate for his claim. After his retirement he made an application dated 22nd January 1987 (Exh. 28) seeking a change in his birth date from 2nd January 1925 to 27th August 1927. Subsequently, the Civil Suit in question was instituted. Application (Exh. 28) and the institution of the suit were two years after he had retired. It was, however, his case that in the year 1977, while in service, he had made similar request to the defendant-employer, but the same was not considered without any good reason. Subsequently, the Civil Suit in question was instituted. Application (Exh. 28) and the institution of the suit were two years after he had retired. It was, however, his case that in the year 1977, while in service, he had made similar request to the defendant-employer, but the same was not considered without any good reason. 5.1 Regulation No. 18 of the Regulation of the appellant Board (Vij Company) provides as under: "Any correction in respect of age or date of birth of an employee may be permitted subject to production of satisfactory proof and documentary evidence, with the permission of the Superintending Engineers of the Circles for field offices and the Secretary in case of staff working in Head Office. Such a correction should not however, be permitted if an employee has completed 50 years of age." 5.2 At this stage, the principles and parameters of law regarding correction of birth date and entertaining requests of the employees/Government servants in that regard may be considered. Service rules setting out time-limit or prescribing the outer-period for correction of date of birth are not violative of Article 14 and has reasonable nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. It was so held by the Supreme Court in Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. Md. Sarifuz Zaman, (2003) 12 SCC 408 while upholding the vires of Regulation 8 of Assam Regulations for Conduct of Examinations by the Board, wherein period of three years was provided. 5.3 In State of Punjab v. S.C. Chadha, (2004) 3 SCC 394 the apex court observed that the sole object of such rules is to see that any claim regarding correction of birth date should not be made or entertained after decades especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. It was further stated, "Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service-book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service-book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. But, of late a trend can be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of their retirement waking up from their supine slumber raise a dispute about their service records, by either invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or by filing applications before the concerned Administrative Tribunals, or even filing suits for adjudication as to whether the dates of birth recorded were correct or not. (para 8) 5.4 In Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 3 SCC 162 : AIR 1993 SC 1367 this Court considered whether the employer was justified in declining the respondent's request for correction of the date of birth after thirty-five years of his entering the service and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in allowing employee's application, Reversing the order of the Tribunal, it was observed: "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 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. 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. 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. (Para 7) 5.5 In Commr. of Police v. Bhagwan V. Lahanethis, (1997) 1 SCC 247 : AIR 1997 SC 1986 Court held that for seeking the correction of his date of birth, it is a condition precedent that the employee must show that the incorrect recording of the date of birth was made due to negligence of some other person, or that the same was an obvious clerical error. In Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy, (1997) 4 SCC 647 : AIR 1997 SC 2055 it was observed that a bona fide error would normally be one where an officer has indicated a particular date of birth in his application form or any other document at the time of his employment but, by mistake or oversight a different date has been recorded. 5.6 It is also well-settled that any claim for correction of birth date can be entertained only in accordance with the procedure prescribed therefor in the relevant rule or regulation and within the time period fixed therein. In the case of Govt. of A.P. v. M. Hayagreev Sarma, (1990) 2 SCC 682 , the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 were considered. In the case of Govt. of A.P. v. M. Hayagreev Sarma, (1990) 2 SCC 682 , the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 were considered. The public servant concerned had claimed correction of his date of birth with reference to the births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal corrected the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, in view of the entry in the births and deaths register ignoring the Rules framed by the State Government referred to above. It was inter alia observed by this Court that the object underlying Rule 4 was to avoid repeated applications by a Government employee for the correction of his date of birth and with that end in view it provided that a Government servant whose date of birth may have been recorded in the service register in accordance with the rules applicable to him and if that entry had become final under the rules prior to the commencement of 1984 Rules, he will not be entitled for alteration of his date of birth. 5.7 The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas, 2011 (9) SCC 664 : AIR 2011 SC 3418 the court was considering Regulation 84 of the Madhya Pradesh Financial Code that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service was to be treated conclusive and binding on the Government servant. It was observed that the purpose of the said Rule was to limit the scope of correction of the date of birth and the only exception was the clerical error or mistake which may have crept in in the record of the age. It was held that only that clerical error or mistake would fall within the ambit of the said Rule which is caused due to the negligence or want of proper care on the part of the same person other than the employee seeking correction and that the onus is on employee concerned to prove such negligence. The following observations from Premlal Shrivas (supra) laydown the legal proposition. The following observations from Premlal Shrivas (supra) laydown the legal proposition. "It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a Government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any Government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a Government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he 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. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights. (para 8) 5.8 In State of Orissa and ors. v. Brahamarbar Senapathi, (1994) 2 SCC 491 , the facts were that under the Rule, application for correction of birth date was liable to be summarily rejected if filed after five years from date of entry in service. When the respondent had joined, the date recorded was 18.05.1929, and on that basis he was attain age of superannuation on 31.05.1989. On receipt of notice for retirement, he filed application for correcting his date of birth as 27.06.1934 on the basis of School Certificate. From the facts it was noticed that the employee was aware of the entry in service register in 1970, but he did not take any action within five years thereafter. It was held that his application was liable to be rejected. From the facts it was noticed that the employee was aware of the entry in service register in 1970, but he did not take any action within five years thereafter. It was held that his application was liable to be rejected. 5.9 In State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka, AIR 1971 SC 173 the Supreme Court held in the context of Rule 56(a) of the Fundamental Rules, that the date of compulsory retirement must be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the Government servant claims to be his date of birth. "In the service record of the respondent his date of birth was recorded as July 1, 1910 and under F. R. 56 (a) the respondent was liable to be compulsorily retired on the date on which he attained the age of 55 years. The date of compulsory retirement under F. R. 56 (a) must in our judgment, be determined on the basis of the service record, and not on what the respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected consistent with the appropriate procedure. A public servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the service record, and may apply for correction of the record. But until the record is corrected, he cannot claim that he has been deprived of the guarantee under Article 311(2) of the Constitution by being compulsorily retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the footing of the date of birth entered in the service record." (Para 4) ".We are unable to agree with the view of the High Court that the date of "actual superannuation" within the meaning of S. R. 8 Note is the date of superannuation computed with reference to the claim made by the public servant, and not with reference to the date as entered in the service record. If such an interpretation be' accepted, S. R. 8 Note would prove in a majority of cases of no practical utility. If such an interpretation be' accepted, S. R. 8 Note would prove in a majority of cases of no practical utility. It is intended by S. R. 8 Note that any error in the service record shall be rectified at the earliest opportunity and in no case should an application for rectification be entertained within three years of the "date of actual superannuation i.e. the date of superannuation according to the service record." (Para 5) 5.10 Referring to the decisions relied on by learned advocate for the appellant in T.V. Venugopalan (supra), the rule prescribed five years period, and it was held that the same should receive harmonious interpretation and that the employee would be required to make an application for correction of birth date there under within five years from the date of enforcement of the rule. In Megh Raj Garg (supra) the respondent sought to correct birth date in his service record after 10 years of joining of service by producing the matriculation certificate on the basis of decision of the Syndicate of the University allowing and making changes in the matriculation certificate. It was held that the decision of the Syndicate. Was not binding to the State Government. It was further held that the declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry in the Government service was conclusive and binding and application made after two years was not entertainable. 5.11 Decision in Satish Kumar Mittal (supra), relied on by the appellant was under Punjab Civil Services Rules. In that case Respondent 1 Assistant District Attorney joined the office and got the date of his birth recorded in the service book on the bais of his Matriculation Certificate. He made a representation to appellant Department for correction of his date of birth which was rejected on the basis of Notification which laid down that no application for correction in date of birth, submitted after two years form entry into service, can be entertained. Respondent 1 filed a suit for declaration that the decision was bad in law. Trial Court granted a decree holding that appellant was giving a retrospective effect to the Notification and that was not permissible, therefore, appellant's order was null and void - Ld. Respondent 1 filed a suit for declaration that the decision was bad in law. Trial Court granted a decree holding that appellant was giving a retrospective effect to the Notification and that was not permissible, therefore, appellant's order was null and void - Ld. Single Judge upheld the said orders in appeal, it was held that the relevant rule always required an application for correction of date of birth to be submitted within two years from joining the service - however, the application by first respondent was made after some nine years of joining into service which was not made within reasonable time. Whether the suit was time barred or not, the claim was in any case belated and beyond the period provided in the rules. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of High Court and of the lower courts. In Ramanath Patnaik (supra), the Supreme Court did not permit correction of birth date after retirement. 6. From the above decisions the principles deducible are that date of birth recorded in service record of an employee has to be treated as final and its correction may be permissible only in accordance with the rules in that regard. If there are no rules, it is held that correction has to be sought within a reasonable time. Correction of birth date at the fag end of ones career is not permitted. It is trite principle in the service jurisprudence which is based on a public policy, that there has to be a certainty about the date of birth and the service tenure of an employee and his pleas for changing the birth date would not be entertained at its sweet will as it will have repercussions on others also. 6.1 The say of the respondent-plaintiff was that he applied in 1977, but request was not entertained. From the record, it is seen that the request of the respondent-employee was considered at the relevant time and a communication dated 17.08.1977 was addressed departmentally. The authorities were not satisfied with the case of the employee for substitution of his birth date. They called for further proof and documents from him. Now, even if the said request of 1977 is taken as a plea of the respondent for changing his birth date, the same was also not in accordance with Regulation 18. The authorities were not satisfied with the case of the employee for substitution of his birth date. They called for further proof and documents from him. Now, even if the said request of 1977 is taken as a plea of the respondent for changing his birth date, the same was also not in accordance with Regulation 18. Regulation 18 of the appellant, which is regarding entertaining the request of employees for correction of birth date, interalia provided that such request has to be made before employee completes 50 years of age. The Regulation has two aspects. It permits correction of date of birth subject to production of satisfactory proof. In the second place it requires that such an application would be permitted before the employee completes 50 years of age and no request for correction shall be entertained thereafter. Therefore, in terms of the request of the defendant in 1977 also, he was not entitled for correction because at that time he had crossed the age of 50 years. 6.2 The age of fifty years for the purpose of Regulation No. 18 has to be counted on the basis of the existing date of birth mentioned in his service record, and not on the basis of date of birth with regard to which a claim for correction is put forth by the employee. If the age of fifty years is to be counted with reference to the date of birth sought to be corrected by the employee, in that event, Regulation No. 18 would become unworkable and otiose, and it would lead to a situation that at any time employee would seek correction in birth date. 6.3 On one hand, therefore, even on the basis of request made in 1977, the plaintiff was not entitled to correction in the birth date in view of Regulation 18, the said application being after completion of 50 years in service. At that juncture, instead of turning down the request finally, the appellant authorities liberally responded asking the respondent to produce satisfactory proof. Thereafter, years passed by but the respondent did not do anything and he allowed himself to retire in 1985 on the basis of the date of birth already recorded. He made application two years after retirement having awakening himself from slumber. Then he filed the suit. His inaction for long was fatal. Thereafter, years passed by but the respondent did not do anything and he allowed himself to retire in 1985 on the basis of the date of birth already recorded. He made application two years after retirement having awakening himself from slumber. Then he filed the suit. His inaction for long was fatal. In no way he could have got his birth date changed belatedly. It was not permissible. The trial court could not have passed the decree. 7. In light of above discussion and reasons, the decree passed in the suit by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Junagadh, declared that the birth date of the plaintiff was 12th August 1927 and not 2nd January 1925 as entered in his service record could not sustain. Consequentially, said judgment and decree passed by the trial court and judgment and order of the Second Joint District Judge dated 9th March 2000 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1990 confirming the said decree in partial modification also does not sustain. Both the judgments and decrees are set aside. The Appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.