Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been superannuated on the basis of notice of retirement being Reference No.213/142 dated 10.10.2013 w.e.f. 31.3.2014 on attaining 60 years of age as per the Company Rules. That is being challenged by the petitioner, apart from the order dated 25.6.2013 rejecting his representation for correction of his date of birth passed by the AGM (Engineering) and Incharge (P&A)(C&J), Steel Authority of India Ltd., Collieries Division, Personnel Department, Chasnala, Annexure 7/1. The grievance of the petitioner as culled out from the pleadings and submissions made on his behalf were recorded in the order dated 18.6.2015, which is quoted hereunder:- “18.06.2015 Petitioner seems to have entered the Form on 05.03.1974 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) at the time of entry in service giving his age as 20 years, which would mean that he was born sometime in 1954. Later on, he seems to have produced a matriculation certificate apparently issued by the Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samittee on 01.07.1971 where his date of birth is shown as 20.01.1956. Taking into account the aforesaid matriculation certificate, petitioner was given promotion to the post of Junior Chemist Trainee on 14.10.1988 as matriculation was the minimum educational qualification required for such promotion. However, at the fag end of his service after issuance of notice of retirement, based upon the form filled up at the time of entry in service (Annexure-A), he has approached this Court for correction of his date of birth. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent Company seeks sometime to produce all relevant records relating to the service career of the petitioner so that the issue can be finally considered and decided. 3. Accordingly, as prayed for, list the case after four weeks on 23.07.2015.” 3. The respondents have not only filed counter affidavit but also cited the relevant records of the service career of the petitioner, which are in the custody of the learned counsel for the respondents, who has produced the same for perusal of the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also inspected the said records. 5. The respondents have not only filed counter affidavit but also cited the relevant records of the service career of the petitioner, which are in the custody of the learned counsel for the respondents, who has produced the same for perusal of the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also inspected the said records. 5. Now in the wake of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner is making out a case that if his matriculation certificate had been acted upon for promotion to the post of Junior Chemist Trainee on 14.10.1988, which required the minimum educational qualification of matriculation, then respondents should respect the entry of date of birth in the matriculation certificate and should not have retired him on a simple entry made at the time of joining in service on 5.3.1974. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner in his own handwriting at the time of entry in service gave his age as 20 years and did not produce any such matriculation certificate. It is submitted that other documents, which are in service records, are filled up by the petitioner himself where his date of birth is shown as 20.01.1956 as per matriculation certificate. In any case, the plea of correction of his date of birth is raised in the year 2013 by way of representation, Annexure 7 dated 29.5.2013. Therefore, correction of his date of birth should not be entertained. 7. Petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Yogendra Mahto Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., WP(S) No.4701/2012 dated 28.8.2012 where respondents were directed to examine the representation of the said petitioner and his matriculation certificate to find out the correct date of birth of the said petitioner. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and the relevant materials on records. It appears from the facts, as noticed herein-above, that at no point of time prior to making a representation, vide Annexure 7 dated 29.5.2013 the petitioner had appealed for correction of his date of birth, though he was conscious of the entry made by him at the time of his joining in service on 5.3.1974 made in his declaration form. Perusal of the representation at Annexure-7 also shows that he had made incorrect plea that at the time of joining in service, he had produced the matriculation certificate as he had already passed the same in 1971. Perusal of the representation at Annexure-7 also shows that he had made incorrect plea that at the time of joining in service, he had produced the matriculation certificate as he had already passed the same in 1971. The petitioner's grievances have been considered by the respondents in the impugned order dated 25.6.2013, where they have found that in terms of his initial declaration made at the time of joining the petitioner would attain the age of 60 years on 31.3.2014 as per his age 20 years declared on 4.3.1974. Since the aforesaid plea of correction of his date of birth is raised at the fag end of service and that too on an incorrect plea that he at the time of joining in service had produced the matriculation certificate, such indulgence cannot be allowed at this stage in favour of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth. From the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, though it appears that the said petitioner had also relied upon the matriculation certificate but the discussion made therein shows that the leaned Single judge did not find that the petitioner himself had made a declaration of a different age at the time of entry in service and later on sought correction thereof. In the facts and circumstances of the present case if the petitioner had himself declared his age as 20 years at the time of entry in service in 1974, he cannot be allowed to seek such correction after 39 years in the year 2013. 9. Considering the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any substance in the writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed.