JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing office order dated 02.07.2009, whereby the petitioner has been forced to retire with retrospective effect w.e.f 31.01.2008. 2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner joined the services under the respondents on 08.01.1970 and during her service tenure, she appeared in Matriculation Examination, conducted by Bihar School Examination Board, as private candidate and passed the same in the year 1983. Thereafter, School Leaving Certificate was issued wherein her date of birth has been mentioned as 25.06.1951, as evident from Annexure 3 to the writ application. It has further been submitted that thereafter, the petitioner passed the examination of Nursing in the year 1988 and accordingly the 'Certificate of Registration for Nurse' was issued by Bihar Nurses Registration Council, wherein also her date of birth has been mentioned as 25.06.1951. But to the utter surprise, respondent no. 4 issued impugned order dated 02.07.2009 informing the petitioner about her retirement with retrospective date i.e. 31.01.2008 counting her date of birth as 25.01.1948, as stated to be mentioned in the service book of the petitioner. 3. Heard Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, J.C to learned A.A.G for the respondents. 4. Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Matriculation certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 25.06.1951, but the respondents by making interpolation, has issued the impugned order to make her premature retired. 5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, J.C to learned A.A.G submitted that in the service book, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 25.01.1948 and petitioner has also signed on that statement. It has further been submitted that after completion of about 40 years of service, the petitioner applied for correction in her date of birth, which is bad in law as per Government circular dated 12.03.1987, as evident from Annexure A to the counter affidavit. 6. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, Mr. It has further been submitted that after completion of about 40 years of service, the petitioner applied for correction in her date of birth, which is bad in law as per Government circular dated 12.03.1987, as evident from Annexure A to the counter affidavit. 6. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, J.C to learned A.A.G produced the service book of the petitioner, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 25.01.1948 and the petitioner has herself put her signature and there is no interpolation in recording the date of birth and it is also admitted fact that after joining the services, the petitioner obtained the matriculation certificate and Nursing Certificate and she never produced the same before the respondents-authority. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to a decision rendered in the case of Marang Baski Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors as reported in 2013(1) JLJR 213 , wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that when a person obtains matriculation certificate after entering into service, there is every possibility of submitting a wrong statement of fact regarding date of birth, therefore, such evidence cannot be blindly relied upon. 7. Furthermore, the date of birth dispute at the fag end of service is deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar & Anr as reported in AIR 1995 SC 1499 has in unequivocal terms has enunciated that writ petition for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service with object of continuing in service ordinarily should not be entertained. 8. On cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 02.07.2009 does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to pendency of this writ application, the retiral dues of the petitioner has not been paid. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ application shall not come in way to the respondents to pay the legally admissible retiral dues of the petitioner, if not already paid.