JUDGMENT SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR The petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction upon respondents for payment of arrear of salary along with consequential monetary benefit for the period between 1.2.2005 to 30.09.2012 at 18 % interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Cap Lamp Fitter in C.C.L. His date of birth was recorded as 09.1.1945 however, it has been stated in the writ petition that his actual date of birth is 30th September, 1952. The petitioner made representation on 24.9.1981 for correction in his date of birth however, it was not done. Again on 7.12.1987 and 13.7.1998 the petitioner made such representation to the respondents however, necessary correction in the date of birth was not carried out and vide letter dated 31st August, 2004, the petitioner was informed that he would be retired from service from 31st January, 2005. This writ petition has been filed on 30th January,2013. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. From the statement made in the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner prior to his superannuation from service more particularly when the letter dated 31st August, 2004 was communicated to him, never approached the Court for redressal of his grievance. The first representation was made by the petitioner in the year, 1981, and thereafter, he made representation in the year 1987 & 1998 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2013. 5. It has been settled through a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a mandamus cannot be issued for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service. If there are Rule by the Company/Corporation, such application should be made within the time fixed by the Rule and if there is no Rules, the representation of the employee should be made within a reasonable period. In any event at the fag end of his service and in the present case after the superannuation from service, no mandamus can be issued for correction in date of birth. The claim of the petitioner is based on the correction in the date of his birth as recorded in the service book of the company and therefore, it cannot be granted. 6. In “Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. The claim of the petitioner is based on the correction in the date of his birth as recorded in the service book of the company and therefore, it cannot be granted. 6. In “Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. versus 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. 7. In “State of U.P. and Others versus Gulaichi (Smt)”, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 483 , a case in which the employee applied for correction of date of birth as recorded in service book at the verge of retirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : 9. “.......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 the 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. 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. 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.” 8. In “State of T.N. Versus T.V. Venugopalan”, reported in (1994)6 SCC 302 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there is provision under the service rules for entertaining any request for correction/alteration of the recorded date of birth within five years, an application for correction made beyond five years cannot be entertained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 7.”...This Court had, repeatedly, been holding that the inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth. The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register is to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register......” 9. In view of the aforesaid, since no order can be passed for correction in date of birth of the petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition lacks merit, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.