ORDER 1. Aggrieved by order dated 18.06.2002, whereby the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the matriculation certificate has not been accepted by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to correct/rectify his date of birth and for grant of other consequential benefits to which the petitioner was legally entitled for. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1965 as U/G Munshi in Industry Colliery. The petitioner was supplied a copy of the Register and Service sheet on 29.05.1987, in which, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 01.05.1943. On receipt of the copy of the Register and Service sheet, the petitioner made an endorsement thereon intimating the authorities that as per the matriculation certificate, his date of birth is 28.02.1947 and therefore, his date of birth recorded in the Service sheet (which was recorded as 01.05.1943) should be corrected. The petitioner made a representation on 02.03.1994 for correction of his date of birth on the basis of the certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board. On 05.10.1998, the petitioner submitted another representation for rectification of his date of birth. When his date of birth was not corrected, the petitioner moved the High Court in W.P. (S) No. 6042 of 2001, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.12.2001 with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the coal wages agreement or any other agreement in this regard. Pursuant to the order dated 21.12.2001, the petitioner submitted his representation along with a photocopy of the matriculation certificate in which his correct date of birth is recorded. By order dated 18.06.2002, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 21.12.2001, the petitioner submitted his representation along with a photocopy of the matriculation certificate in which his correct date of birth is recorded. By order dated 18.06.2002, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 3. A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which a plea has been raised that the petitioner himself has authenticated the statutory form B, in which his date of birth has been recorded as 01.05.1943.It has also been stated that the Director (Personnel) did not accept the matriculation certificate of the petitioner on the ground that it was not produced at the time of appointment in 1965 and since a photocopy of matriculation certificate has been submitted at the fag end of his service, it was not accepted by the authorities, as it was not possible to comment upon the authenticity of the certificate. 4. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could detect the discrepancy in the date of birth recorded in the Register and Service sheet, only when a copy of the same was made available to him on 29.05.1987 and immediately he requested the authorities for correction in his date of birth.Thereafter also, he made representations, however, the date of birth of the petitioner was not corrected and he was asked to superannuate on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the service book, that is, 01.05.1943.The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the action of the respondents was arbitrary and illegal. 6. On the other hand, Mr. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently submitted that at the fag end of his service, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition and it cannot be entertained.He has further submitted that there is serious dispute with respect to question of fact involved in the present writ petition and therefore, for this reason also, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.The learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155, (1994) 6 SCC 302 , (1997) 5 SCC 181 , AIR 2001 SC 72 and (2003) 6 SCC 483 .He has also relied on a judgment of this Court reported in (2009) 1 JCR 697 . 7. On perusal of the documents on record, it is evident that the copy of Register and Service book was supplied to the petitioner only on 29.05.1987.The purpose of supplying such copy to the employee is to intimate the authorities any discrepancy appearing in the Service book of the employee.This is evident from the endorsement at the bottom of the said copy that the petitioner has duly made the endorsement that his date of birth, according to the matriculation certificate, is 28.02.1947 and therefore, it should be corrected.It is also a matter of record that the issue involved in the present case has to be decided in accordance with Implementation Instruction No.76 dated 25.04.1988.The learned counsel for the respondents has admitted that there is no period prescribed in the Implementation Instruction No. 76 during which period only, the date of birth could have been corrected. 8. In the case of “State of T.N. Vs. T.V. Venugopalan”, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the rule provided that application for alteration of recorded date of birth would be entertained only if made within five years after entering service, application made thereafter could not have been entertained because the employee had already lost his right to make such application.In the present case as noted above, there is no such stipulation in the Implementation Instruction No.76. 9. In the case of “Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. Vs. 9. In the case of “Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. Vs. R. Kirubakaran”, reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the application seeking correction in the date of birth should be made within the time fixed by any rule or order and in absence of such a rule or order, it should be made within a reasonable time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an application filed after 33 years of service and only about a year before superannuation ought not to have been allowed by the Tribunal. As noted above, there is no rule fixing the time limit for making an application seeking correction in the date of birth and the petitioner at the first instance when it was brought to his notice that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded in the service book, made representation to the authorities. 10. In the case of “State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Ramanath Patnaik”, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 181 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that after the retirement the correction in the date of birth in the service record is not permissible. 11. When the date of birth of the employee was determined by the medical board in accordance with the procedure laid down by the employer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors.”, reported in AIR 2001 SC 72 , has held that since the date of birth determined by the medical was accepted by employer, there was no scope for the High Court to interfere with the date of birth as determined by the employer and issue a writ of mandamus that the date as claimed by the employee should be accepted. 12. The facts in the cases of State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Ramanath Patnaik (supra) and G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors. (supra) are entirely different from the facts of this case and therefore, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clearly distinguishable on facts. 13. In the case of “State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Vs. Ramanath Patnaik (supra) and G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors. (supra) are entirely different from the facts of this case and therefore, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clearly distinguishable on facts. 13. In the case of “State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Gulaichi (Smt)”, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 483 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interfered with the order of High Court because a correction in the date of birth as recorded in Service book was sought at the verge of retirement. 14. From the materials available on record, I find that the petitioner has made an endorsement on the copy of the Register and Service book supplied to him way back in 1987 and thereafter also, he has made representations regularly.The petitioner has sought correction in date of birth as recorded in the Service book on the basis of his matriculation certificate, in which his date of birth is recorded as 28.02.1947.The matriculation certificate has not been denied by the respondents and a vague statement has been made in the counteraffidavit that since it is a photocopy, it cannot be commented upon.Such a stand taken on a vital issue, which involves serious civil consequences, is not tenable.I am inclined to believe that the respondents have accepted the genuineness of the matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner.If the respondents had any doubt with respect to the genuineness of the photocopy of the matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner, they would have asked for production of the original copy of the matriculation certificate and/or production of certification from the Bihar School Examination Board.I also find that this is not a case in which at the fag end of his service, the petitioner has raised the issue with respect to his date of birth.The date of birth of a person as recorded in the matriculation certificate has been accepted under various enactments, such as Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 15. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the petitioner has a right to get his date of birth recorded in the Service book, corrected on the basis of the matriculation certificate which has been issued by a statutory authority. 15. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the petitioner has a right to get his date of birth recorded in the Service book, corrected on the basis of the matriculation certificate which has been issued by a statutory authority. It is open to an employee to claim correction of his date of birth if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. The petitioner, as noted earlier, has made an endorsement on the copy of Register and Service book in the year 1987 itself that his date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate should be entered into his service book and thereafter also, he has made representations. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has raised the dispute regarding his date of birth at the fag end of his service. The petitioner had been agitating his claim and only when his representation was decided in the year 2002, he moved this Court by filing the present writ petition. Hence, I am of the opinion that there is no latches or delay on the part of the petitioner in moving this Court. Since the petitioner has already retired from service, he is entitled for the grant of all the monetary benefits as well as the consequential benefits which would have accrued to him, had his date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate, been entered in his service book. Consequently, the date of superannuation of the petitioner from the service would be reckoned in the light of his date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate, i.e. 28.02.1947. 16. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to calculate and pay all the monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.