ORDER : In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 13.02.1954 instead of 29.08.1951. A further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 07/08.01.2011 issued to the petitioner wherein the request for a change of date of birth of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The petitioner was working in Khas Karanpura Colliery from before nationalization. It is the case of the petitioner that before coming into service the petitioner was a matriculate and considering the educational qualification of the petitioner, he was appointed as a Munshi in 1975 and was subsequently promoted to a higher post. The date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 24.08.1951 whereas in the Matriculation certificate it was shown as 13.02.1954. It is the further case of the petitioner that since in the service excerpts two date of births existed the petitioner represented the authorities to correct his date of birth on the basis of that which has been recorded in his matriculation certificate. The date of birth was never changed although the petitioner had represented the authorities and ultimately the petitioner was issued a letter dated 26.01.2011 in which he was informed that he was to superannuate on 31.08.2011. However, just after his superannuation the claim of the petitioner for change in his date of birth was considered by the authorities and the same was rejected vide letter dated 07/08.01.2011 and which is under challenge in the present writ application. 3. Heard Mrs. Vipul Divya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents -C.C.L. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a matriculate and his date of birth is 13.02.1954 as has been recorded in the said certificate. It has further been submitted that considering the qualification of the petitioner he was appointed as a Munshi in the scale of pay Rs. 330-12-438. Learned counsel further adds that the petitioner was subsequently regularized/redesignated as M. T. K. Clerk Grade – II in the year 1988 and subsequently as M. T. K. Clerk Grade – I in the year 2005. 330-12-438. Learned counsel further adds that the petitioner was subsequently regularized/redesignated as M. T. K. Clerk Grade – II in the year 1988 and subsequently as M. T. K. Clerk Grade – I in the year 2005. It has further been submitted that in the cadre scheme for ministerial staffs general clerical cadre requires qualification of a matriculate for promotion in Clerk Grade – III post. For this, learned counsel for the petitioner would suggest that the respondents were all along in possession of the matriculation certificate of the petitioner otherwise the petitioner would not have been granted promotions which are specifically meant for such employees who are at least matriculate. It has been submitted that if the respondents are in possession of the matriculation certificate correction in date of birth in consonance with that in the said certificate could easily have been done but on one pretext or the other the respondents have throughout the service period of the petitioner did not correct the date of birth recorded with his actual date of birth. 5. Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents -C.C.L., on the other hand, has referred to various documents maintained by the Company to suggest that there has been consistent evidence on record which would go to prove that the date of birth of the petitioner is 13.02.1954 and not 29.08.1951. In this context, he has referred to the Menials Service Register, Age Determination Committee Report, Excerpt of the Form B Register, Service Sheet, Form PS – 3 and Form PS – 4. It has been submitted that in all the records the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 29.08.1951 and taking into consideration the same the petitioner was superannuated on 31.08.2011. It has been submitted that in the Form B Register the signature of the petitioner is present as also in the report of the Age Determination Committee. It has been submitted that even after the Age Determination Committee has ascertained the age of the petitioner as 35 years as on 29.08.1986 which tallies with the original date of birth recorded in the Form B Register the petitioner never chose to raise his grievance against the report of the Age Determination Committee. Moreover, in the service excerpts also no objection was made by the petitioner with respect to the date of birth recorded in the same. Moreover, in the service excerpts also no objection was made by the petitioner with respect to the date of birth recorded in the same. Learned counsel further adds that even in the Coal Mines Pension Scheme records the petitioner had declared his date of birth as 29.08.1951. It has also been submitted that upon consideration of the entire materials the claim of the petitioner to change his date of birth was rejected. Learned counsel further adds that the age dispute was raised by the petitioner at the fag end of his service career and as such no cognizance can be taken of such claim. 6. The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be the subsequent promotion which was granted and for which the qualification of matriculation is necessary. The petitioner at the fag end of his service has raised an issue with respect to his date of birth which could have been raised by him much earlier but he did not opt to do so. The Age Determination Committee had come to a conclusion with respect to ascertaining his age and which co-related with the date of birth mentioned in the various documents kept by the Company. The petitioner never objected to the findings of the Age Determination Committee as nothing has been brought on recored to suggest so. Moreover, in each and every document the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 29.08.1951. Merely suggesting or questioning the report of the Age Determination Committee or the entries made in the service sheet at this juncture when the petitioner has already superannuated on 31.08.2011 is a ruse to reopen or reconsider an issue which does not inspire confidence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others v. Chhota Birsa Uranw reported in AIR 2014 SC 1975, Gopal Prasad Singh vs. M/s BCCL, Dhanbad & Ors. reported in 2012 (1) JLJR 33 and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey vs. M/s B.C.C.L. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad & Ors. reported in 2007 (3) JLJR 726 . 8. In the case of Gopal Prasad Singh vs. M/s BCCL, Dhanbad & Ors. (Supra) and Kamta Pandey vs. M/s B.C.C.L. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad & Ors. reported in 2007 (3) JLJR 726 . 8. In the case of Gopal Prasad Singh vs. M/s BCCL, Dhanbad & Ors. (Supra) and Kamta Pandey vs. M/s B.C.C.L. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad & Ors. (Supra) it has been held that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and it is the conclusive proof of age. In the case of M/s B.C.C.L. (Supra) it was held as follows:- “Against this backdrop, the stance of the appellant that the records in the Form 'B' register must be relied upon does not hold good as it is admitted by the appellant that errors existed in the same. Even a perusal of the nominee form exhibits the ambiguity regarding the date of birth and date of joining. It was due to the discrepancies which subsisted that the appellants gave all its employees a chance to rectify the same. In such circumstances, the appellants are bound by their actions and their attempt to deny the claims of the respondent is incorrect. The respondent in this case duly followed the procedure available and the attempt of the appellant to deny the claim of the respondent on the basis of technicality is incorrect. We, therefore, feel that the learned single Judge has correctly held that: “11. Having given the petitioner, like all employees, the benefit of seeking correction of the entries contained in their service records including their date of birth, the petitioner's claim cannot be denied, merely because he had signed upon the Form 'B' Register at the time of its opening and containing the entry of date of birth as recorded therein”. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the case of State of Haryana v. Satish Kumar Mittal reported in (2010) 9 SCC 337 wherein with respect to the belated claims it was held as follows:- “It is also seen that such applications are made very often, almost at the end of the service of the employee or in any case, belatedly. Whatever may be the reason, the fact remains that in the present case, the application was made after some nine years of joining into service. Whatever may be the reason, the fact remains that in the present case, the application was made after some nine years of joining into service. Even assuming that the first respondent came to know in June 2001 that there was an error in his date of birth entered in the matriculation certificate, as claimed by him, he took more than three years to issue the notice under Section 80 CPC and then to file the suit. Whether the suit was time-barred or not, the claim was in any case belated. It has to be filed within the time provided or within reasonable time and it is not to be entertained merely on the basis of plausible material as held in Kirubakaran. As observed by this Court in State of U.P. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyay: (SCC p. 54, para 9) “9. … 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.” 10. It is no doubt true and as held by this Court in the judgement referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner that matriculation certificate shall be the conclusive proof of age but at the same time it must be borne in mind that applications/requests for correction of date of birth shall be within a reasonable time which would mean within a reasonable time from the date of his initial appointment. The facts narrated above do suggest that in all the records the date of the birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 29.08.1951. If the date of birth of the petitioner was 13.02.1954 as claimed by him he could not and should not have entered 29.08.1951 as his date of birth in the various documents related with his service. The facts narrated above do suggest that in all the records the date of the birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 29.08.1951. If the date of birth of the petitioner was 13.02.1954 as claimed by him he could not and should not have entered 29.08.1951 as his date of birth in the various documents related with his service. Even otherwise the petitioner has approached this Court after issuance of the superannuation notice and considering the entire fact situation as well as the belated claim which the petitioner has raised, I am of the considered view that no case for interference by this Court has been made out by the petitioner and accordingly, in such circumstances there being no merit in this writ application, the same is, hereby, dismissed. Application dismissed.