ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner entered in service on 5th October, 1986 as a Miner Loader when his age was assessed as 30 years as on 17th July, 1986. The service excerpts at Annexure-3 also indicates his educational qualification as matriculate. It also contains the list of all his family members and his own acknowledgment signed on 20th August, 1987 relating to the entries. However, his date of birth as per the matriculation certificate at Annexure1 is 6th May, 1963. He is shown to have passed Matriculation Exam from one R.K.R.V. High School, Mokameh held in September, 1978. Despite the matriculation certificate in his possession much before his entry in service and such matriculation entry shown in the service excerpts also petitioner accepted his age determined as 33 years on 17th July, 1986 which is the basis of his retirement in May, 2013. He has preferred this writ application only on 18th May, 2013 seeking correction in his date of birth entry based upon matriculation certificate. 3. Petitioner though has relied upon representations said to have been made on 3rd September, 2007 ( Annexure-2) and 9th June, 2008 (Annexure-4) raising his grievances of date of birth before the respondent but receipt of both the representations are categorically denied in the counter affidavit by the respondents vide statements made at paragraph nos. 13 and 17. Petitioner has sought to rely upon certain corrections of date of birth accorded on the basis of matriculation certificate or admit card of matriculation of one Hira Prasad Lal, HV Driver and one Ram Naresh Sharma and another person as evident from Annexure-7 Series dated 11th May, 2010, 16th December, 2008 and 15th April, 2008. According to the petitioner, in view of the provisions contained in Implementation Instruction-76 specifically relating to review of date of birth entry of existing employees, petitioner's date of birth entry should have been also corrected after due verification of his matriculation certificate as it was obtained prior to his entry in service. Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment of Full Bench rendered in the case of Kamta Pandey vs. M/s. B.C.C.L. reported in 2007 (3) JCR 681 (Jhr.) (FB) in support of his submission. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and stated that the instant issue raises disputed question of fact which are fit for industrial adjudication. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and stated that the instant issue raises disputed question of fact which are fit for industrial adjudication. Petitioner's date of birth has been recorded at the time of entry in service which he has duly acknowledged by recording his signature. He has been superannuated on the basis of age recorded in the Statutory Form-B Register. Petitioner's age was assessed by the Medical Board on 17th July, 1986 as 33 years and the assessment of age report at Annexure-A by the Medical Board also contains his left thumb impression. Respondents have refuted receipt of any such representation and stated that the dispute about the date of birth is raised on the verge of retirement which need not be interfered with. It is also stated that in the documents where the petitioner's age is recorded as 33 years, other entries of the petitioner have been also recorded which have been duly acknowledged by him. He had never produced matriculation certificate prior to his appointment. 5. Perused the relevant material on record and considered the submission of the parties. In the light of the relevant material facts pleaded, it is evident that the petitioner has never raised a dispute relating to entry of his date of birth in the service excerpts in the year 1987 till the institution of the instant writ petition. The claim of making representation on his behalf is also strongly refuted by the respondents as already recorded hereinabove. As a matter of fact, petitioner was subjected to assessment of age by the Medical Board in which the petitioner participated and affixed his left thumb impression. This form the basis for entry of age in the service excerpt recorded in 1987. Petitioner's service excerpts did contain the reference of his matriculation but despite his assessment of age as 33 years and other relevant entries of his family members thereunder, petitioner duly acknowledged the same by putting his signature thereupon, he never protested thereafter till filing of the writ petition. The dispute relating to date of birth has been raised in the month of his retirement in May, 2013. 6. The dispute relating to date of birth has been raised in the month of his retirement in May, 2013. 6. Learned Division Bench in Full Bench judgment rendered in the case of Kamta Pandey (Supra) has observed that though employee will not be normally permitted to apply for change of his date of birth at the fag end of his service career, but if the court is 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 when a clear case, relating to the date of birth, is made out on the basis of clinching materials, then necessary direction to make a declaration of the said date of birth can be given. In the said case at para 28, it was found that the claim was not made at the fag end of service. On the other hand, it was found that some of the records of the Company, like Identity Card and Seva Abhilekh have been issued immediately after his appointment, which indicated that his date of birth was 1st July, 1951 as reflected in the matriculation certificate. Therefore, contention of the respondent employer on the issue of fag end was not accepted in the said case. Even taking into account the observations made in the Full Bench Judgment, it is clear that the petitioner has raised his date of birth at the fag end of his service career being conscious of his assessment of age since 1986 itself. Therefore, I am afraid, in such circumstances, any interference in the matter after retirement of the petitioner is wholly uncalled for. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.