JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondents. The present application has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to rectify the wrong entry of date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book which was a result of miscalculation and for setting aside the letter dated 15.01.2013 by which the request of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth was declined on the ground of delay. 2. According to the petitioner, in the Admit Card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam for appearing in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination, 1969, the age of the petitioner is recorded as 15 years as on 1.3.1969. After passing the said examination, in the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, the age of the petitioner is also recorded as 15 years as on 1.3.1969. Accordingly, as per the matriculation certificate, it is very clear that the date of birth of the petitioner would be 1.3.1954. 3. The petitioner entered service as Assistant Agriculture Officer (AAO) in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Manipur, in the year, 1975 which was subsequently regularised on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission, (MPSC) in the year 1977. According to the petitioner, when the final seniority list of Assistant Agriculture Officers of the Department of Agriculture, Government of Manipur, was published in 1986, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1.3.1955. In the Manipur Government Employees List (MGEL) maintained by the State Government, the date of birth of the petitioner is also recorded as 1.3.1955. However, in the pay slip issued by the office of the Accountant General, (A.G.) Manipur, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 1.3.1954. 4. According to the petitioner as two different dates of birth were shown in the records as mentioned above, the petitioner verified his date of birth recorded in the Service Book where he found that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded as 1.3.1953. And accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner, Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Government of Manipur on 19.5.2012 requesting for change of his date of birth in the Service Book by highlighting the facts and circumstances as mentioned above. And accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner, Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Government of Manipur on 19.5.2012 requesting for change of his date of birth in the Service Book by highlighting the facts and circumstances as mentioned above. According to the petitioner, pursuant thereto the Deputy Secretary, Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Government of Manipur, wrote to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Assam on 1.10.2012 requesting for confirmation of the date of birth of the petitioner. In response thereto, the Board of Secondary Education, Assam informed the State Government that as per records the date of birth of the petitioner is found to be recorded as 15 years as on 1.3.1969. However, to his shock and surprise, the petitioner’s request for correction of his date of birth was declined by the State Government, which was conveyed by the Deputy Secretary, Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Government of Manipur, in his letter dated 15.1.2013 addressed to the Director, Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Government of Manipur, in which it has been stated that the matter has been examined in consultation with the Finance (PIC), Government of Manipur and observation of the Finance Department (PIC) was that "that any request for alteration of date of birth of the Government employee would be within 5 years of entry into service as per Note 6 below FR 56. In the instant case, the application is submitted after a lapse of 35 years. In view of the provisions laid down under Note 6 below FR 56, the request cannot be considered at this late stage." The aforesaid letter dated 15.01.2013 is being challenged in the present writ petition. 5. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the main criteria for determination of the date of birth of an employee is the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate of the employee concerned and in the present case, as the age of the petitioner was recorded as 15 years as on 1.3.1963, the date of birth of the petitioner is to be 1.3.1954. However, it has been wrongly recorded in the Service Book as 1.3.1953. Accordingly, the said wrong entry of date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book is required to be rectified on the basis of the matriculation certificate. 6. However, it has been wrongly recorded in the Service Book as 1.3.1953. Accordingly, the said wrong entry of date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book is required to be rectified on the basis of the matriculation certificate. 6. The petitioner contends that preparation of Service Book of the petitioner was made by the concerned dealing assistant and the petitioner merely put his signature in the Service Book and it was prepared while the petitioner was appointed as AAO on ad hoc basis. The dealing assistant had wrongly recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 1.3.1953 in place of 1.3.1954 by wrong calculation. The petitioner without detecting the said wrong calculation and entry put his signature in the Service Book. Thereafter, the Service Book of the petitioner was kept in custody of the authority concerned, i.e. the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Manipur and as such he had no opportunity to verify whether his date of birth had been rightly recorded in the Service Book. According to him as he was a gazetted officer, he does not put his signature in the Service Book annually because of which he could not verify his date of birth. The petitioner stated that he detected the wrong entry of his date of birth in the Service Book some time in the middle part of 2012 and accordingly, requested the concerned authority to rectify the wrong entry of his date of birth in the Service Book, but the authorities rejected the request of the petitioner as mentioned above. 7. According to the petitioner, the wrong entry of date of birth in the Service Book can be altered even at a late stage by the authority if it is satisfied that it was due to bona fide clerical mistake at the time of preparation of the Service Book. The petitioner contends that the wrong entry was due to miscalculation by the dealing assistant. Furthermore, the fact remains that the date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded varyingly in different documents namely, final seniority list of Assistant Agriculture Officers, the MGEL, the payslips and the Service Book. Therefore, it would be necessary to record the correct date of birth on the basis of matriculation certificate. Furthermore, the fact remains that the date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded varyingly in different documents namely, final seniority list of Assistant Agriculture Officers, the MGEL, the payslips and the Service Book. Therefore, it would be necessary to record the correct date of birth on the basis of matriculation certificate. However, the authorities by taking a technical view of the matter by holding that the request of the petitioner is time barred as having been made beyond five years of entry in the Service Book as mentioned in the impugned letter dated 15.1.2013, has rejected the claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, such an action requires to be reviewed inasmuch as the Government had in the past made correction of dates of birth in respect of other employees even at the fag end of their career, as is evident from the corrigenda dated 16.6.1999 and 3.3.2001 (Annexure-A/13 and A/14 respectively). According to the petitioner, the date of birth in respect of the aforesaid two officers namely, Shri Ksh Manglemjao Singh and Shri Tongkhothang Kipgen, were corrected at the belated stage before their retirement and as such, there is no reason why the authorities cannot correct the date of birth of the petitioner also at this stage considering the fact that the date of birth entered in the Service Book had been erroneously entered and it is not supported by the matriculation certificate mentioned above. The action of the authorities, the petitioner contends, is not only unreasonable but also discriminatory by refusing the request of the petitioner while allowing that of others. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the fact that it was a bonafide clerical mistake, is also tacitly admitted by the authorities concerned when the authorities wrote to the Director of Horticulture and Soil Conservation on 26.3.2013 requesting him to re-enquire into the matter and intimate the name and designation of the dealing official who was responsible for recording date of birth of the petitioner as 1.3.1953 instead of 1.3.1954, if the HSLC/matriculation certificate of the petitioner is confirmed to be genuine. This action of the respondent would clearly indicate that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 1.3.1954 as the matriculation certificate of the petitioner had been already confirmed to be genuine by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam and said letter also would clearly indicate that the miscalculation was committed by the dealing assistant who had recorded the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book. Therefore, it is clear that the recording of date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book as 1.3.1953 was a bonafide mistake since the matriculation certificate is not disputed nor denied by the concerned authority and there is no reason why the authority should not allow the rectification of the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of the matriculation certificate. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Mohd Yunus Khan Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors: (2009) 1 SCC 80 in which the Supreme Court allowed correction of date of birth even at a belated stage. The Supreme Court had observed that even if there was provision under the Rules fixing a time frame for filing an application for correction of date of birth in the Service Book, the same would not be of much significance, if it was shown that the mistake in the matter of record of date of birth in the service record was not known at an earlier point of time. If the representation is filed immediately on coming to know of the mistake, there would not be any reason to make necessary correction by referring to para 14 of the judgment, which read as follows: 14. No material has been placed before us in regard to existence of a statutory rule fixing a time frame for filing an application for correction of the date of birth in the service record. Even if there was such a provision, the same, in our opinion, would not be of much significance as the respondents had not shown that the mistake in the matter of recording of date of birth in the service record was known to the appellant at any earlier point of time. Even if there was such a provision, the same, in our opinion, would not be of much significance as the respondents had not shown that the mistake in the matter of recording of date of birth in the service record was known to the appellant at any earlier point of time. If the appellant’s contention is correct that he came to learn about it only in April 1988 whereafter he filed a representation, it must be held that there was no delay on his part in this behalf. An employee may take action as is permissible in law only after coming to know that a mistake has been committed by the employer. 9. The petitioner claims to have known the mistake of wrong entry of date of birth in the Service Book only some time in the middle part of 2012 and since the mistake was committed by the dealing assistant, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Khan’s case (supra) the present petition ought to be allowed. 10. The State respondents have filed their affidavit in opposition. In the affidavit in opposition it has been stated that the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded in the Service Book as 1.3.1953 and the same was accepted by the appropriate authority and after a lapse of about 35 years of service, the petitioner submitted the representation only on 19.5.2012 for correction of date of birth. The authorities in consultation with the Finance Department (PIC), Government of Manipur considered the request of the petitioner and on the advice of the Finance Department (PIC) which referred to the provisions of FR 56 Note 6 requiring submission of application within five years of entry in service, the request of the petitioner was declined. It has been submitted that any belated claim of correction of date of birth recorded in the Service Book after more than five years of entry in service, as provided under Note 6 of FR 56, at the verge of retirement, cannot be allowed, as it would be against public policy. It has been submitted that any belated claim of correction of date of birth recorded in the Service Book after more than five years of entry in service, as provided under Note 6 of FR 56, at the verge of retirement, cannot be allowed, as it would be against public policy. It was also contended that since the petitioner was appointed as gazetted officer and was holding a responsible post, it was his duty to check the correctness of his date of birth recorded in his Service Book in time for doing the needful but the petitioner had slept over his right for the last 35 years and has awakened only at the time of his retirement and as such, his claim ought not be allowed. Learned Advocate General has also submitted that it is well settled law that any request for change in date of birth at a belated stage is not permissible and the Gauhati High Court has also decided a similar case reported in M. Irabot Singh Vs State of Manipur: 1998 (4) GLT 322 which also disallowed such a request on the ground of delay and latches. 11. Therefore, the issue to be decided in the present writ petition is whether the request of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth can be allowed at this stage after 35 years of service on the basis of the matriculation certificate on the ground that it had been erroneously entered in the Service Book by the dealing assistant by miscalculation and more so, when the authorities had allowed correction of date of birth in respect of others at a belated stage. 12. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record it may be observed that it is not in dispute that as per the matriculation certificate the date of birth of the petitioner would be 1.3.1954. However, the fact remains that the date of birth of the petitioner was not recorded in the Service Book as per the matriculation certificate but recorded as 1.3.1953. This wrong recording, according to the petitioner was done by the dealing assistant by miscalculation and the petitioner without verifying had put his signature and the petitioner was not responsible for such a mistake of wrong entry of the date of birth in the Service Book. 13. This wrong recording, according to the petitioner was done by the dealing assistant by miscalculation and the petitioner without verifying had put his signature and the petitioner was not responsible for such a mistake of wrong entry of the date of birth in the Service Book. 13. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said contention of the petitioner inasmuch as, the petitioner being a gazetted officer, it was his responsibility to see if any wrong entry was made in the Service Book as the matriculation certificate was in his possession and with him at all the relevant points of time. The plea that the dealing assistant had wrongly recorded the date of birth due to miscalculation and the petitioner had merely put his signature without realising the mistake cannot be accepted. Such a contention if accepted could lead to allowing someone to deny and evade responsibility for what is written in the document while putting his signature. Before allowing such a contention to be accepted, the proponent has to discharge the heavy onus of proving that he was not in a position to understand what was being written for reasons which have to be demonstrated to be acceptable. In the present case, the petitioner has not come up with any material to prove the said contention. It is not the case of the petitioner that the entry of date of birth was on the basis of some other document which was later on found to be incorrect. In the present case, the matriculation certificate was very much in the possession of the petitioner and it was his responsibility to ensure that the correct date of birth was entered in the Service Book. He cannot shift the responsibility of the incorrect entry/miscalculation to some other person. Since he had put his signature in the Service Book knowing the contents, it will be presumed that he had accepted the same as correct. This presumption however, is rebuttable, provided he is able to show with material evidence that he was not aware of such a mistake due to certain reasons or circumstances as discussed above. Since he had put his signature in the Service Book knowing the contents, it will be presumed that he had accepted the same as correct. This presumption however, is rebuttable, provided he is able to show with material evidence that he was not aware of such a mistake due to certain reasons or circumstances as discussed above. According to the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner has been correctly shown as 1.3.1954 in the payslip issued in June 2012 (Annexure A/7) which was different from the date of birth shown in the final seniority list of AAOs which was published as far back as on 14.1.1986. It is also the case of the petitioner that his date of birth has been also wrongly shown as 1.3.1955 in the MGEL maintained by the State Government. The MGEL Certificate was issued by the authority on 12th July 2011. The petitioner submitted his application only on 19.5.2012 stating that his date of birth is recorded as 1.3.1954 in the payslip issued by the A.G., Manipur and since his date of birth was recorded in the seniority list as well as the MGEL differently as 1.3.1955, he personally checked up the Service Book and thereafter found that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded as 1.3.1953. 14. The aforesaid averment made by the petitioner in the application dated 19.5.2012 is highly doubtful considering the fact that the payslip issued by the office of the Accountant General, Manipur, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-A/7 on which basis the application was submitted was dated 11.6.2012, i.e. after about a month of submission of the application. If the petitioner claims to have become aware of the discrepancy in the recording of date of birth because of the payslip, the petitioner ought to have known such a discrepancy much earlier as the petitioner was being issued payslips regularly earlier after the publication of the seniority list of AAOs and accordingly ought to have verified his service book and approached the authorities much earlier. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had been sleeping over the matter for the last 35 years cannot be brushed aside, rather it deserves acceptance. 15. The matriculation certificate was in the possession of the petitioner according to which his date of birth would be 1.3.1954. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had been sleeping over the matter for the last 35 years cannot be brushed aside, rather it deserves acceptance. 15. The matriculation certificate was in the possession of the petitioner according to which his date of birth would be 1.3.1954. Yet, when the seniority list of AAOs was published on 14.1.1986, it was shown as 1.3.1955 which was not in conformity with the matriculation certificate. He was also in possession of payslip at all the relevant time. Therefore, he ought to have verified his Service Book at that time without waiting for so long. 16. The fact remains that the matriculation certificate of the petitioner has not been disputed and as per the matriculation certificate his date of birth ought to be 1.3.1954. Thus, the entry of date of birth as 1.3.1953 in the Service Book is certainly a mathematical error. The question whether this Court can take cognizance of such a mathematical error while computing dated of birth based on matriculation certificate at this late stage for necessary correction has been already dealt with and considered by the Gauhati High Court on an earlier occasion in M. Irabot Singh Vs State of Manipur: 1998 (4) GLT 322 as submitted by the learned Advocate General. In that case, the Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench had observed that the date of birth recorded in the Service Book can be altered if it was a mistake in calculation even at a belated stage by repelling the contention of the State that any belated request, will not be permissible as provided under Note 6 of FR 56, which had set a limitation period of 5 years from the entry in service for making such a request. In the appeal filed by the State against the aforesaid judgment, as there was a difference of opinion between two learned Judges sitting in division, the matter was referred to a third learned Judge, and by a majority decision of two learned Judges it was held, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Burn Standard Co Ltd & Ors Vs Dinabandhu Majumdar and Anr.: (1995) 4 SCC 172 etc., that any claim for correction of date of birth at the fag end of career will not be maintainable because of delay and laches. The majority view of High Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Harnam Singh: (1993) 2 SCC 162 and held that that even if one is able to establish that the entry of date of birth in service record was not correct and erroneous on the basis of good evidence, the inaction by the claimant for long period of time would disentitle any such claim. The Ld. Third Judge whose opinion tilted the balance in favour of the view that delay would defeat any such claim in spite of good evidence observed in the said case as reported in State of Manipur & Ors Vs M. Irabot: (2002) 2 GLR 148 as follows. 6. Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Sarkar was of the view that the dispute was not in the nature of correction of the date of birth but is was purely a case of correction of Arithmetic error committed by the petitioner as well as by the Government, and therefore, the error can be corrected even at the fag end of service of the petitioner if Matriculation certificate is considered as genuine one. I am respectfully disagree with the view expressed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Sarkar as he has completely overlooked the basic facts that the claim for correction of date of birth has been made by the petitioner at the fag end of his service and only after he received a notice retiring him on superannuation. The learned Judge also completely overlooked the fact that there was negligence and laches on the part of the writ petitioner in failing to raise a dispute at appropriate time as envisages under Note 6 to FR 56. On the other hand, Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K.K. Singh has dwelt at length the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Burn Standard Co Ltd and others, Appellant, v Dinabandhu Majumder and another, respondents, (1995) 4 SCC 172 and Union of India, Appellant v Ram Suia Sharma, Respondent, (1996) 7 SCC 421 and has reached the conclusion that the laches and negligence precludes the writ petitioner from raising a dispute at the fag end of his service and dismissed the writ petition. I am respectfully agreed with the conclusion reached by my learned brother H.K.K. Singh for the reason that I assigned herein. .......... .......... 9. I am respectfully agreed with the conclusion reached by my learned brother H.K.K. Singh for the reason that I assigned herein. .......... .......... 9. Having resolved the aforesaid point, reverting to the facts of the case at hand, and at the risk of repeatatic, the petitioner joined in Government service on 7.8.1968. His date of birth recorded in the service book as on 1.9.1940. After serving about 30 years in the service and at the fag end of his service when he received an impugned notice dated 27.6.1998, retiring him on superannuation w.e.f. 31.1.1998, taking his date of birth as on 1.9.1940, writ petitioner filed for the first time the representation dated 7.9.1998 claiming that his date of birth is 1.7.1942 and not 1.9.1940, which is clearly impermissible in view of a bar imposed under Note-6 to F.R. 56 and a catena of decisions of the Apex Court, such claim is hit by laches and negligence and his silence for about 30 years of his service would precludes him from raising that his date of birth entered into service record was erroneous, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. In fact, in the case at hand, petitioner passed the Matriculation examination in 1981. The age of the petitioner as on 1.3.1961 was 18 years 8 months, and therefore, his correct date of birth would be 1.7.1942, and if the petitioner raise a dispute within a stipulated time without wasting much time, his case would have been different, but as held by the Apex Court in Union of India, Appellant v Harnam Singh, respondent (1993) 2 SCC 162 , his inaction for all this period of about thirty years from the date of birth in service record was not correct, even if he has good evidence to establish that recorded date of his birth is erroneous. Thus, even if there is good evidence to show that the date of birth recorded in the Service Book at the time of entry in the service was erroneous, if there is a long delay on the part of the employee in approaching the authorities for correction of the date of birth, the delay would defeat such a claim. Thus, even if there is good evidence to show that the date of birth recorded in the Service Book at the time of entry in the service was erroneous, if there is a long delay on the part of the employee in approaching the authorities for correction of the date of birth, the delay would defeat such a claim. In the present case, even if it is held that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 1.3.1954 on the basis of matriculation certificate as contended by the petitioner and not controverted by the respondents, yet, because of delay in approaching the authorities, more particularly, at the fag end of his career, after having rendered more than 35 years service, any such a claim would be defeated. 17. It may be also stated that the Supreme Court in State of MP Vs Premlal Shrivas: (2011) 9 SCC 664 had the occasion to consider the issue for correction of date of birth in service record at a belated stage. In the said case of Premlal Shrivas (supra) the Supreme Court after discussing the earlier judgments in this regard observed as follows: 8. 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 (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh3). 9. In Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran4 indicating the factors relevant in disposal of an application for correction of date of birth just before the superannuation and highlighting the scope of interference by the courts or the tribunals in such matters, this Court has observed thus: (SCC pp. 158-59, para 7) 7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their dates 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 for 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 merely caused injustice to his immediate junior. (emphasis supplied) Further, referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay and Anr. Vs. (emphasis supplied) Further, referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay and Anr. Vs. Bhagwan v. Lahane: (1997) 4 SCC 647 it was held that an employee seeking correction of his date of birth, it is a condition precedent that he must show, that incorrect recording of date of birth was made due to negligence of some other persons, or that the same was obvious clerical error, failing which the relief should not be granted and in Union of India Vs C. Rama Swamy: (1997) 4 SCC 647 , it was observed that a bonafide 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. In the present case even though petitioner has contended that incorrect recording of date of birth was by the dealing assistant, it has not been proved that the said incorrect recording was due to negligence of the said dealing assistant. It is a fact that the petitioner was in possession of the matriculation certificate with him throughout his service and on which basis his date of birth would be 1.3.1954. Yet when his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 1.3.1955 in the seniority list of AAOs, which was published in 1986, he opted to remain silent. The petitioner has not at all explained what made petitioner remain silent when the seniority list which was the basis for all the subsequent promotion of the petitioner had been consistently showing wrong date of birth as 1.3.1955, when it was evidently incorrect in terms of the matriculation certificate which was in his possession. It cannot thus, be said that there was due diligence on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his claim. 18. As regards the judgment in Md Yunus Khan’s case (supra) on which the petitioner has heavily relied, it may be mentioned that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed the change of date of birth because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Firstly, in the said case, there was no statutory rule fixing time frame for filing an application for correction of date of birth in the service record as clearly mentioned in para 14 of the said judgment. Firstly, in the said case, there was no statutory rule fixing time frame for filing an application for correction of date of birth in the service record as clearly mentioned in para 14 of the said judgment. Secondly, there was another employee with the same name of the claimant and the date of birth of the second person with the same name had been wrongly recorded in the service book of the appellant claimant. It was in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, without referring to any of the earlier judgments had allowed the said writ petition. In the present case, as there is a specific rule which prohibits consideration of request for change of date of birth, as provided under Note 6 to FR 56, after more than five years of entry in service and as the petitioner admittedly made the request after about 35 years of service such a request cannot be entertained on the ground of delay and laches. The facts obtaining in the present case are different making the aforesaid decision in Md. Yunus Khan (supra) inapplicable to the present case. On the other hand, there is overwhelming decision of the Supreme Court that normally change of the date of birth in the Service Book cannot be allowed at the fag end of one’s career, as it will be hit by delay and laches and also against public policy. 19. The plea of the petitioner that the authorities had allowed correction of date of birth in respect of others at the belated stage and as such, denial of the same to the petitioner is discriminatory also cannot be accepted inasmuch as the petitioner has not been able to show under what circumstances, the aforesaid changes were allowed. The changes allowed as per corrigenda dated 16.6.1999 and 3.3.2011 (Annexure-A/13 and A/14) were in respect of seniority lists and not relating to entry in Service Book. It could be also that such changes were ordered in conformity with the entry of date of birth in the Service Books. Therefore, in absence of adequate and clear pleadings and materials, the said contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It could be also that such changes were ordered in conformity with the entry of date of birth in the Service Books. Therefore, in absence of adequate and clear pleadings and materials, the said contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstance of the case and relevant law as discussed above, this Court is of the view that as the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the petitioner was not also responsible for the wrong entry of the date of birth in the service record by not detecting the said wrong entry earlier in spite of due diligence. As such, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained at this belated stage, at the fag end of his career. His claim is clearly hit by delay and laches. Accordingly, the relief sought for cannot be granted and resultantly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.