JUDGMENT : C.L. Soni, J. The petitioner has prayed for following relief in para 13 of the petition : “(A) Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or Direction the respondents corporation for not to implementing the letter dated 18/07/2013,issued to the petitioner without giving an opportunity being heard and meantime the petitioner may not be take any punitive action against the petitioner for early retire from the service and the respondents may maintain the status quo, at the present post, where the petitioner is working as a senior coach of the respondents-corporation. (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant stay of the letter dated 18/07/2013, issued by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner and maintain the status quo, qua the petitioner. (C) Be pleased to grant any other and further relief as think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have suddenly given letter dated 18.7.2013 to him stating that he has changed date of birth in the duplicate service book which was submitted with letter dated 17.11.2012, and no approval taken from the Government while correcting the date of birth in his duplicate service book, and that treating the birth date of 17.5.1955 recorded earlier in the service book, he has to be superannuated in July, 2013. The petitioner was also asked to immediately submit account of the bills of Rs. 1,39,70,550.00 of his office. 3. The petitioner has averred in the petition that at the time of joining the service on 16.12.1987, the petitioner had submitted his relevant documents-School Leaving Certificate (SLC) and SSC Certificate, driving licence, passport, birth certificate and the identity card issued by the respondent authority, and his date of birth mentioned in all documents is 22.6.1956 which is the true and correct date of birth. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no evidence coming from the respondent authority to controvert the above date of birth which is supported by the SLC and other documents. The petitioner has lastly averred that the action of the respondents to retire him with effect from 31.7.2013 without holding inquiry is against the principles of natural justice. 4. The petitioner has lastly averred that the action of the respondents to retire him with effect from 31.7.2013 without holding inquiry is against the principles of natural justice. 4. The respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply stating that considering the date of birth entered at the time of entry in service, the petitioner is to retire from 31.7.2013. However, the petitioner has played some mischief with the service book which remained in his custody. The Competent Authority intimated the petitioner to follow the procedure for preparing duplicate service book. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that in letter dated 1.1.2013 written by the petitioner to the Secretary, Sports Authority of Gujarat, the petitioner has stated that due to heavy rain in 2004, entire service record was destroyed in rain and at the relevant time,duplicate service book was prepared. However, permission of the competent authority was not taken. However, considering the endorsement and other writings in the service book, the service book could not be said to be duplicate one. It clearly appears that the service book is original one, however, same was projected as duplicate by putting word “Duplicate” on the first page of service book. It is further stated that as per the resolution of the General Administration Department dated 11.8.1989, the petitioner was required to make application for correction of his date of birth within the period of five years from the date of preparation of service book and before completion of probation or from the date of becoming permanent employee on being converted from temporary employee. It is lastly pointed out that the procedure which is required to be followed for correction in the date of birth is not followed in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to any relief especially when the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. 5. To the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner has filed affidavit in rejoinder placing on record copy of seniority list, identity cards issued by the Government of Gujarat. The respondents have also filed further affidavit. 6. The petitioner has also filed further affidavit placing on record some more documents including SLC of April, 1966 in support of his say that his correct date of birth is 22.6.1956. 7. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties. Learned Advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara appearing with learned advocate Mr. The respondents have also filed further affidavit. 6. The petitioner has also filed further affidavit placing on record some more documents including SLC of April, 1966 in support of his say that his correct date of birth is 22.6.1956. 7. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties. Learned Advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara appearing with learned advocate Mr. Punam G. Gadhvi for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not made any application for the correction of his birth date. However, the concerned authorities corrected the birth date of the petitioner in the year 2009. Such corrected birth date remained on the service book of the petitioner till the petitioner was served with the impugned communication to retire. Mr. Pujara submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioner was required to be heard before asking the petitioner to retire on the basis of birth date originally recorded in the service book. However, the respondents without following the principles of natural justice, straightway asked the petitioner to retire on the basis of the original birth date recorded in the service book of the petitioner. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Pujara submitted that the petitioner has produced ample evidence on the record of this petition to prove that his correct birth date is 22.6.1956. Mr. Pujara submitted that the petitioner has produced on record School Leaving Certificate of 1966, 1981 and 2009 as also copy of passport, driving licence and identity card issued by the concerned authority wherein date of birth found recorded is 22.6.1956 and there is no contrary material produced by the respondents to prove that the date of birth of 22.6.1956 is not correct date of birth of the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara submitted that since the action of the concerned respondent authority to retire the petitioner on the basis of the birth date of 17.5.1955 entail civil consequences, such action could not have been taken against the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara submitted that even the Government Resolution for recording and making change in the birth date clearly provides that the SSC Certificate is to be considered as final proof for the purpose of date of birth of an employee. Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara submitted that even the Government Resolution for recording and making change in the birth date clearly provides that the SSC Certificate is to be considered as final proof for the purpose of date of birth of an employee. Mr. Pujara submitted that in view of such provision in the resolution, date of birth as per the SLC as also the SSC Certificate produced on record is to be treated as final and correct and, therefore, even if the change is effected in the year 2009, on the basis of School Leaving Certificate by the concerned officers of the department, such being concrete material relied on by the concerned authority, respondent are not justified in asking the petitioner to retire on the basis of date of birth originally recorded. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara submitted that when the Court passed interim order in this very petition in favour of the petitioner, the Court considered all documents on record and also considered the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and then granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner and since no other view is possible, the Court may allow the petition confirming the same view. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara submitted that after this court passed interim order, the respondents have produced copy of birth certificate alleged to be of the petitioner. However, in such birth certificate, the column for name of the child is kept blank. Therefore, such could never be said to be the birth certificate of the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara therefore submitted that since this court has considered all documents placed on record while passing the interim order and since such interim order was passed after considering rival submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties, this court may not take different view of the matter just because the respondents are now producing copy of birth certificate without there being any name recorded in such birth date. He, thus, urged to allow this petition. Learned Advocate Mr. Pujara has relied on the following authorities: (1) AIR 1989 SC page 568 in the matter of H.L. Trehan v. Union of India and others. (2) 2009(1) SCC page 80 in the matter of Mohd. Yunus Khan v. UP Power Corporation Limited and others. (3) AIR 1967 SC 1269 in the matter of State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei and others. 10. (2) 2009(1) SCC page 80 in the matter of Mohd. Yunus Khan v. UP Power Corporation Limited and others. (3) AIR 1967 SC 1269 in the matter of State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei and others. 10. As against the above arguments, learned Asstt. G.P. Mr. Ronak Raval submitted that the entry of 17.5.1955 as date of birth of the petitioner was made in the service book of the petitioner when the petitioner joined service on 16.12.1987. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval submitted that it is the case of the petitioner that such entry was made on the basis of the relevant documents given by the petitioner. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval submitted that such birth date remained in service book till 2009 for about 22 years, and the petitioner never objected against the above said birth date of 17.5.1955. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval submitted that all throughout the service book of the petitioner remained in his custody and he knew about recording of 17.5.1955 as his birth date in his service book. Still, for about 22 years, the petitioner did not take any action or make any application for correction of his birth date. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval submitted that it is the case of the petitioner that he has not made any application. However, in the letter written by the petitioner, he has admitted preparing of duplicate service book which contained correction in the birth date. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval submitted that this was not possible unless the petitioner had taken active interest in correction of his birth date. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval submitted that the petitioner in his letter addressed to the concerned authority has given reason for preparing duplicate service book. However, the service book of the petitioner though bare endorsement of “duplicate”, is not duplicate but is his original service book. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval submitted that the service book of the petitioner shown to the court bears impression of palm of the petitioner and also bears various original notings as regards pay scale and other particulars concerning service of the petitioner. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval submitted that once the petitioner himself has admitted that he had prepared duplicate service book, there is no question of affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned A.G.P.Mr. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval submitted that once the petitioner himself has admitted that he had prepared duplicate service book, there is no question of affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned A.G.P.Mr. Raval submitted that the petitioner since knew that it was not possible for him to make application for correction in the birth date after long period of 22 years, he got it endorsed indirectly. Such petitioner, who is coming with falsehood and responsible for correction of his birth date which was not permissible under the Government Resolution, is not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval submitted that after the interim order was passed by this court, department has found out birth certificate of the petitioner and of his brother. Department has also found that there are other original service book of other employees serving with the petitioner and at no point of time, service book of any of the employees was either washed away or destroyed in the year 2004 as alleged by the petitioner. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval therefore submitted that since the petitioner has not come before the Court with clean hands, no relief can be granted to the petitioner while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval thus urged to dismiss the petition. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval relied on following judgments: (1) Decision of date 15.6.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 4210 of 2010 in the case of Jagdishchandra Keshavlal Thakkar v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2) 2006 Law Suit (Gujarat) 331 in the case of Binubala H. Mehta v. State of Gujarat. (3) 2013 Law Suit (Gujarat) 1077 in the case of Girdharlal Parbhat Makwana v. Director General of Police and Others. 12. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having perused record of the case, it appears that the petitioner joined service as athletic coach on 16.12.1987 and in his service book, date of birth entered was 17.5.1955. It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the time of joining service, he had submitted relevant documents for his qualification as well as School Leaving Certificate, SSC Certificate etc. in proof of his birth date. It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the time of joining service, he had submitted relevant documents for his qualification as well as School Leaving Certificate, SSC Certificate etc. in proof of his birth date. There is no dispute about the fact that after the birth date 17.5.1955 was entered in the service book of the petitioner, the same remained in the service book of the petitioner till 2009. Therefore, for about 22 years, petitioner never objected against such birth date. The petitioner himself has stated and even learned advocate Mr. Pujara submitted that the petitioner never made application for correction of his birth date. However, in 2009, birth date 22.6.1956 came to be substituted/changed in place of birth date originally recorded in the service book of the petitioner. The petitioner has admitted in his letter dated 1.1.2013 addressed to the Secretary, Sports Authority of Gujarat that in 2004, on account of heavy rain since his service book was washed away, he had prepared duplicate service book, but through over sight, he could not get approval of the concerned authority. Thus, it clearly appears that neither the birth date was changed on any application of the petitioner nor was changed on account of any order of the Government for correction of such birth date. 13. At this stage, Government Resolution produced with the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 at annexure IV needs to be referred. Clause (iv) of the resolution provides for time limit for change/correction in the birth date of an employee. Clause (iv) of the said Government Resolution when translated in English, reads as under. “4. Time limit for correction of birth date-After the service book of concerned employee is prepared and before probation period is over or within five years of continuous service considered for treating the temporary employee as permanent employee which ever earlier happens, thereafter, request for change in date of birth shall not be considered. However, if the Government is satisfied that the mistake is committed by the clerk and it needs to be rectified and corrected, the Government can grant permission for correction in the birth date at later stage.” 14. However, if the Government is satisfied that the mistake is committed by the clerk and it needs to be rectified and corrected, the Government can grant permission for correction in the birth date at later stage.” 14. The above provision in the said resolution clearly provides that no application for correction of birth date shall be entertained after expiry of the time limit prescribed in the resolution for the purpose of correction of birth date. However, the mistake in wrong recording of birth date could be corrected at later stage only when the Government is satisfied that such mistake was committed by any clerk. Even for correction of clerical mistake, on satisfaction of the Government, specific permission of the Government is required. 15. None of the above requirement is satisfied in the case of the petitioner. Undisputedly, there is no application for correction of birth date. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the Government was satisfied that there was mistake committed by the concerned clerk in recording the birth date when the petitioner entered the service of the respondents. The petitioner himself has admitted that he prepared duplicate service book and he in fact requested in his letter dated 1.1.2013 to grant approval to such duplicate service book and sent his SSC Certificate in support of his corrected birth date. 16. It thus clearly appears that the correction in birth date made in the service book of the petitioner was in derogation of Government Resolution providing for change or correction in the birth date of an employee. 17. The Court when asked learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval how come change in date of birth was recorded, he drew attention of the Court to the xerox copy of SLC dated 24.7.2009 found attached after the last page of service book. It is marked as duplicate xerox copy of SLC. Learned AGP Mr. Raval pointed out that since the service book was in the custody of the petitioner himself, and since the correction in the birth date could be only for the benefit of the petitioner, nobody except the petitioner was interested to place such xerox copy of the school leaving certificate after the last page of the service book. The court finds substance in what Mr. Raval pointed out. The court finds substance in what Mr. Raval pointed out. The xerox copy of the school leaving certificate dated 24.7.2009 could have been placed on service book only by the petitioner. 18. The original service book of the petitioner was made available to the Court for its perusal. The Court finds that right from the first page till the last page, there are various writings duly stamped and signed by different officers in the service book of the petitioner. It also bears palm impression of the petitioner. Looking through the service book produced before the Court, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that though on the front cover page of the service book of the petitioner, “duplicate” is written, it is original service book of the petitioner. The Court was also shown service book of other employees. The service books of all the employees are found in original and not washed away or destroyed at any time in the year 2004 as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, it clearly appears that the petitioner has, for taking undue benefits, got up story of making duplicate service book. 19. It is required to be noted that after interim order was passed by the Court, respondents have filed further affidavit and placed birth certificate alleged to be of the petitioner at annexure R-VIII. The date of birth recorded in birth certificate is 18.7.1955. It is at this stage the document produced by the petitioner at page 59 with his rejoinder needs to be consider. It is identity card issued by the State Authority. Identity card bears 17.7.1956 as birth date of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has accepted such identity card with the above said birth date of 17.7.1956 and not raised any objection. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara though heavily relied on the SLC of the year 1966 and of 1981, however, such documents are produced before the court for the first time. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has accepted such identity card with the above said birth date of 17.7.1956 and not raised any objection. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara though heavily relied on the SLC of the year 1966 and of 1981, however, such documents are produced before the court for the first time. If the petitioner had such documents with him and still has not applied for correction in the birth date for about 22 years, and when the correction in the birth date in the service book of the petitioner is not supported by any Government order for correction of such birth date as required by resolution, the SLC and SSC Certificate produced by the petitioner at this stage before this court could be of no help to the petitioner. Since the correction in birth date is not as required by the Government Resolution in this regard, corrected birth date has got no legal effect. 20. When this court finds that the service book is not duplicate and the change in the birth date made in the service book in the year 2009 was not on account of any clerical error and not with the permission of the Government, and when the petitioner has allowed original birth date to remain in his service book for about more than 22 years without any objection, no illegality or arbitrariness could be found in the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner on the basis of original birth date recorded in the service book. For such action of the respondents, no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner. 21. The contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Pujara that since this court considered all documents and rival contentions raised by the learned advocates for the parties at the time of passing interim order, this court may take the same view while disposing of the matter finally cannot be accepted as the court passed interim order on prima facie view of the matter. However, when this court has further found that the service book of the petitioner is not duplicate and other service books of other employees shown to the court are all original, the letter dated 1.1.2013 written by the petitioner emerged as total falsehood. Such petitioner cannot be entrusted with the writ of this Court. 22. However, when this court has further found that the service book of the petitioner is not duplicate and other service books of other employees shown to the court are all original, the letter dated 1.1.2013 written by the petitioner emerged as total falsehood. Such petitioner cannot be entrusted with the writ of this Court. 22. In the case of Binapai Dei (supra) relied on by learned advocate Mr. Pujara, date of birth of the employee-respondent in the said case was refixed and based on that, she was compulsorily retired from service. In the said case, date of birth of employee was entered in the service book on the basis of disclosure made by her father. Thereafter, the State sought arbitrarily to refix the date of her birth. In such fact situation, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that the employee could not have been compulsorily retired without following the principles of natural justice. 23. In the case of H.L. Trehan (supra) relied on by the learned advocate Mr. Pujara, the issue was that after the circular was issued altering service conditions of the employees, opportunity of hearing was given to the concerned employees. In such fact situation, Hon’ble the Supreme Court ruled that once the decision was taken, there was tendency of upholding such decision and the representation may not yield any fruitful purpose. This decision also will have no applicability to the facts of the case. 23.1 In the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan (supra), employer’s mistake occurred in recording date of birth of two persons with same name. Documents of two employees with the same name were mixed up which resulted into younger employee (appellant of the said case) shown as older and older shown as younger. Appellant in such circumstances applied for correction of date of birth. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in such fact situation held that the mistake committed by the employer was required to be rectified and opportunity to show cause was necessary in case of other employee. 24. In the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4201 of 2010 relied on by learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval, the Court found that the application for correction of birth date was made after the time limit prescribed for making such application. The Court relied on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others v. Vali Mohd. Raval, the Court found that the application for correction of birth date was made after the time limit prescribed for making such application. The Court relied on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi reported in 2007 (2) GLR 1064 and held that the petitioner in the said case was not entitled to correction of birth date. 25. In the case of Girdharlal Parbhat Makwana (supra) relied on by learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval, the Court considered rules applicable for change in the birth date and found that the entry of birth date in the service book remained recorded for almost 31 years and the petitioner never took any step for the purpose of correction of such birth date. In the facts of the case, the court found that the authority was justified in insisting that the request for alteration of birth date was to be made within prescribed time limit. The Court also found that the concerned employee in the said case had occasion to see his service book. He also signed service book. He was aware about the birth date recorded in his service book at the time of entry in the service. In such fact situation, the court held against the employee. 26. In the present case also, after the birth date of the petitioner was recorded in the year 1987, it remained in the service book of the petitioner for almost 22 years. The petitioner had occasion to see his own service book on various occasions. The service book remained in the custody of the petitioner. The correction in birth date in the service book is thus contrary to the resolution of the Government for such purpose, and corrected birth date could be said to be without authority of law and hence cannot stand for the benefit of the petitioner. 27. In the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others v. Dinabandhu Majumdar and another reported in (1995) 4 SCC 172 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court held and observed in para 12 as under: “12. When a person seeks employment, he impliedly agrees with the terms and conditions on which employment is offered. For every post in the service of the Government or any other instrumentality there is the minimum age of entry prescribed depending on the functional requirements for the post. When a person seeks employment, he impliedly agrees with the terms and conditions on which employment is offered. For every post in the service of the Government or any other instrumentality there is the minimum age of entry prescribed depending on the functional requirements for the post. In order to verify that the person concerned is not below that prescribed age he is required to disclose his date of birth. The date of birth is verified and if found to be correct is entered in the service record. It is ordinarily presumed that the birth date disclosed by the incumbent is accurate. The situation then is that the incumbent gives the date of birth and the employer accepts it as true and accurate before it is entered in the service record. This entry in the service record made on the basis of the employee's statement cannot be changed unilaterally at the sweet will of the employee except in the manner permitted by service conditions or the relevant rules. Here again considerations for a change in the date of birth may be diverse and the employer would be entitled to view it not merely from the angle of there being a genuine mistake but also from the point of its impact on the service in the establishment. It is common knowledge that every establishment has its own set of service conditions governed by rules. It is equally known that practically every establishment prescribes a minimum age for entry into service at different levels in the establishment. The first thing to consider is whether on the date of entry into service would the employee have been eligible for entry into service on the revised date of birth. Secondly, would revision of his date of birth after a long lapse of time upset the promotional chances of others in the establishment who may have joined on the basis that the incumbent would retire on a given date opening up promotional avenues for others. If that be so and if permitting a change in the date of birth is likely to cause frustration down the line resulting in causing an adverse effect on efficiency in functioning, the employer may refuse to permit correction in the date at a belated stage. If that be so and if permitting a change in the date of birth is likely to cause frustration down the line resulting in causing an adverse effect on efficiency in functioning, the employer may refuse to permit correction in the date at a belated stage. It must be remembered that such sudden and belated change may upset the legitimate expectation of others who may have joined service hoping that on the retirement of the senior on the due date there would be an upward movement in the hierarchy. In any case in such cases interim injunction for continuance in service should not be granted as it visits the junior with irreparable injury, in that, they would be denied promotions, a damage which cannot be repaired if the claim is ultimately found to be unacceptable. On the other hand, if no interim relief for continuance in service is granted and ultimately his claim for correction of birth date is found to be acceptable, the damage can be repaired by granting him all those monetary benefits which he would have received had he continued in service. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in such cases it would be imprudent to grant interim relief.” 28. In the case of Sheo Nandan Singh v. Union of India and others reported in (1996) 1 SCC 593 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court held and observed in para 3 to 6 as under: “3. The contention of the appellant supported by Shri. Sanyal, learned Senior Counsel is that the appellant had declared his date of birth as 2.1.1936 which could be reflective from the periodical medical inspection reports made by the authorities which noted that as his date of birth. The respondents have deliberately withheld the documents and that, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the declaration that he is not liable to retire until he attains the superannuation age of 58 years. 4. The respondents stated before the Tribunal in the first instance that the record was required to be produced in the High Court and one Mr. P.C. Ghose DS (G) was entrusted with the record to meet their Advocate, Mr. A.B. Ojha. According to the endorsement made by the Sr. DPO on 29.11.1988 the SR of the appellant together with the file was taken by Mr. P.C. Ghose to meet Mr. P.C. Ghose DS (G) was entrusted with the record to meet their Advocate, Mr. A.B. Ojha. According to the endorsement made by the Sr. DPO on 29.11.1988 the SR of the appellant together with the file was taken by Mr. P.C. Ghose to meet Mr. A.B. Ojha, their advocate in connection with the case laid by the appellant. When that was required back by letter dated 23.12.1988, the advocate had stated that “no such paper was with him”. Under those circumstances, it was explained that the file relating to the service record of the appellant was missing. It was also stated by the Tribunal in the earlier proceedings that the definite stand taken by the respondents was that the record was manipulated and service register was removed from record by the appellant in connivance with the Office Superintendent (G). It would thereby appear that the service record of the appellant with the respondent is not available. 5. The only question now is whether the appellant is liable to retire on attaining the superannuation on 21.1.1984 as contended by the Department or is entitled to remain in service for 10 years more treating his date of birth to be 22.1.1936. 6. In view of the state of record and paucity of the authentic material on record, we find it difficult to place implicit reliance on the contention of the appellant. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in dismissing the petition, though for different reasons. Under these circumstances, we cannot give any relief to the appellant.” 29. In the case of State of Punjab and others v. S.C.Chadha reported in (2004) 3 SCC 394 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court held and observed in para 9,11 and 14 as under: “9. Most of the States have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth in the service record is to be dealt with and what procedure is to be followed. In many such rules a period has been prescribed within which if any public servant makes any grievance in respect of error in the recording of his date of birth, the application for that purpose can be entertained. In many such rules a period has been prescribed within which if any public servant makes any grievance in respect of error in the recording of his date of birth, the application for that purpose can be entertained. The sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction, of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades,especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. In the case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka ( 1970 (3) SCC 624 ), this Court said that the date of the compulsory retirement :(SCC pp.625-26, para 4) "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 consistently with the appropriate procedure." In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh 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: (SCC p. 685 para 7) "7. The object underlying Rule 4 is to avoid repeated applications by a Government employee for the correction of his date of birth and with that end in view it provides 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." 11. 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. 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 loose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an important and relevant 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. 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 and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, 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 within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about 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 in 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 thereby caused injustice to his immediate junior. 14. In the instant case the Higher Secondary Examination Certificate was issued on 3.6.1962. If the said certificate disclosed a wrong date, it is not explained by the respondent as to why he did not make any move to get it corrected. Merely because in 1994 an opportunity was granted to the Government employees to get their date of birth corrected, that does not take away the affect of inaction and continued silence for more than three decades. Even in the application made for employment in the year 1992-93 the date of birth was indicated, as noted above to be 19.6.1944. No contemporaneous document was produced to show that recording of the date of birth to be 19.6.1944 was wrong. Accepting the plea of the respondent would result in two public records, educational on one side and service on the other reflecting two different and conflicting dates of birth. Such anomalous situations are to be averted and not to be countenanced.” 30. In the case of State of U.P. and another v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya reported in (2005) 6 SCC 49 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court held and observed in para 6 to 9 as under: "6. Such anomalous situations are to be averted and not to be countenanced.” 30. In the case of State of U.P. and another v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya reported in (2005) 6 SCC 49 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court held and observed in para 6 to 9 as under: "6. 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 practise 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. 7. Most of the States have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth in the service record is to be dealt with and what procedure is to be followed. In many such rules a period has been prescribed within which if any public servant makes any grievance in respect of error in the recording of his date of birth, the application for that purpose can be entertained. The sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction, of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades, especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. The sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction, of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades, especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. In the case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka ( 1970 (3) SCC 624 ), this Court said that the date of the compulsory retirement "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 consistently with the appropriate procedure." In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh 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 : "7. The object underlying Rule 4 is to avoid repeated applications by a Government employee for the correction of his date of birth and with that end in view it provides 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." 8. In Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (RandB) Division, Orissa and Ors. v. Rangadhar Mallik (1993 Supp.(1) SCC 763), Rule 65 of the Orissa General Finance Rules, was examined which provides that representation made for correction of date of birth near about the time of superannuation shall not be entertained. The respondent in that case was appointed on November 16, 1968. On September 9, 1986, for the first time, he made a representation for changing his date of birth in his service register. The Tribunal issued a direction as sought for by the respondent. The respondent in that case was appointed on November 16, 1968. On September 9, 1986, for the first time, he made a representation for changing his date of birth in his service register. The Tribunal issued a direction as sought for by the respondent. This Court set aside the Order of the Tribunal saying that the claim of the respondent that his date of birth was November 27, 1938 instead of November 27, 1928 should not have been accepted on basis of the documents produced in support of the said claim, because the date of birth was recorded as per document produced by the said respondent at the time of his appointment and he had also put his signature in the service roll accepting his date of birth as November 27, 1928. The said respondent did not take any step nor made any representation for correcting his date of birth till September 9, 1986. In case of Union of India v. Harnam Singh ( 1993 (2) SCC 162 ) the position in law was again reiterated and it was observed : "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." 9. 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. 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.Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an important and relevant 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. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of clinching materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, 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 within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about 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 in 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 thereby caused injustice to his immediate junior.” 31. In the case of Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Hukam Chand reported in (2009) 11 SCC 222 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court held and observed in para 12 to 15 as under: “12. Compliance with principles of natural justice, either by holding an enquiry or by giving the employee an opportunity of hearing or showing cause, is necessary, where an employer proposes to punish an employee on a charge of misconduct which is denied, or when any term or condition of employment are proposed to be altered to the employee’s disadvantage without his consent. 13. On the other hand, if there is an admission of misconduct, or if the employee pleads guilty in respect of the charge, or if the employee consents to the alteration of any terms and condition of service, or where the employee himself seeks the alteration in the conditions of service, there is no need for holding an enquiry or for giving an opportunity to the employee to be heard or show cause. Holding an employee guilty of a misconduct on admission, or altering the conditions of service with consent, without enquiry or opportunity to show cause, does not violate principles of natural justice. 14. Holding an employee guilty of a misconduct on admission, or altering the conditions of service with consent, without enquiry or opportunity to show cause, does not violate principles of natural justice. 14. In the circumstances, the Tribunal and the High Court were clearly wrong in accepting the claim of the respondent. 15. The absence of enquiry before altering the date of birth as 02.5.1945 did not affect the validity of the retirement of respondent. Nor did the acquittal in the criminal appeal subsequent to his retirement, entitle the respondent to claim that his date of birth should have been treated as 11.1.1948 or that he should have been reinstated and continued in service till 31.1.2006.” 32. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Premlal Shrivas reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court held and observed in para 11 to 14 as under: “11. Viewed in this perspective, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a manifest error of law in ignoring the vital fact that the respondent had applied for correction of his date of birth in 1990, i.e., 25 years after his induction into service as a constable. It is evident from the record that the respondent was aware ever since 1965 that his date of birth as recorded in the service book is 1st June, 1942 and not 30th June, 1945.It had come on record of the Tribunal that at the time of respondent's medical examination, his age as on 27th September, 1965 was mentioned to be 23 years and his father's name was recorded as Gayadin; and in his descriptive roll, prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police as well, his father's name was shown as Gayadin and his date of birth as 1st June, 1942 and this document was signed by the respondent and the form of agreement known as "Mamuli Sipahi Ka Ikrarnama" was filled up by the respondent himself with the very same particulars. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of the Tribunal rejecting respondent's plea that it was for the first time in the year 1990, when he was promoted as Head Constable, that he noticed the error in the service record was vitiated. 12. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of the Tribunal rejecting respondent's plea that it was for the first time in the year 1990, when he was promoted as Head Constable, that he noticed the error in the service record was vitiated. 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book. 13. Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code, heavily relied upon by the respondent reads as under : "84. Every person newly appointed to a service or a post under Government should at the time of the appointment declare the date of his birth by the Christian era with as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence such as a matriculation certificate, municipal birth certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known, an approximate date may be given. The actual date or the assumed date determined under Rule 85 should be recorded in the history of service; service book or any other record that may be kept in respect of the Government servant's service under Government. The date of birth, once recorded in this manner, must be deemed to be absolutely conclusive, and except in the case of a clerical error no revision of such a declaration shall be allowed to be made at a later period for any purpose whatsoever." 14. The date of birth, once recorded in this manner, must be deemed to be absolutely conclusive, and except in the case of a clerical error no revision of such a declaration shall be allowed to be made at a later period for any purpose whatsoever." 14. It is manifest from a bare reading of Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding on the Government servant. It is clear that the said rule has been made in order to limit the scope of correction of date of birth in the service record. However, an exception has been carved out in the rule, permitting the public servant to request later for correcting his age provided that incorrect recording of age is on account of a clerical error or mistake. This is a salutary rule, which was, perhaps, inserted with a view to safeguard the interest of employees so that they do not suffer because of the mistakes committed by the official staff. Obviously, 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 some person other than the employee seeking correction. Onus is on the employee concerned to prove such negligence.” 33. In light of the above principles of law and for the reasons stated above, petitioner cannot be granted any relief. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Interim relief granted in this petition stands vacated. Rule is discharged. 34. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Pujara requested to continue the interim relief to enable the petitioner to pursue further remedy of appeal against this judgment. Learned Advocate Mr. Pujara states that the petitioner would be required to get the relevant documents translated and also to obtain copy of this judgment and order and, therefore, interim relief may be continued for a further period of four weeks. 35. Request made by the learned advocate Mr. Pujara cannot be accepted. Learned Advocate Mr. Pujara states that the petitioner would be required to get the relevant documents translated and also to obtain copy of this judgment and order and, therefore, interim relief may be continued for a further period of four weeks. 35. Request made by the learned advocate Mr. Pujara cannot be accepted. This Court having taken a view that since the corrected birth date has no legal effect, the respondents are justified in retiring the petitioner on the basis of the birth date originally recorded in the service book of the petitioner, there is no question of permitting the petitioner to continue in service extending interim relief. Therefore, request made by the learned advocate Mr. Pujara to continue interim relief is rejected. Petition dismissed.