JUDGMENT AND ORDER : HRISHIKESH ROY, J. 1. Heard Ms. M. Acharjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The respondent/applicant is represented by the learned counsel, Mr. I.H. Saikia. 2. The challenge here is to the order dated 24.12.2013 (Annexure-I) in the Original Application No. 274 of 2013, whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter would be referred as the CAT) had directed that the applicant’s date of birth be corrected as 01.03.1963 in place of 01.01.1954 as recorded in the Service Book of the Gangman in the Railways. 3.1 Assailing the legality of the impugned verdict, the petitioners project that the applicant entered into service as a Gangman on 07.08.1982 and was granted temporary status on 01.01.1984. His service was regularised thereafter on 27.07.1997. All these while, the Service Book reflected the date of birth of the employee as 01.01.1954 on account of which, he was scheduled to retire on 31.12.2013. But on the eve of the retirement, the O.A. No. 274 of 2013 was filed by the employee and therefore, on this count itself, the petitioners argue that the recorded birth date should not have been ordered to be changed by the Tribunal. 3.2 Referring to the discrepancy in the name of the applicant, the petitioners contend that his name is shown as Chandmahammad Sheikh @ Sand Mahammad Ali and in the admit card relied upon by the employee, the name is reflected as Md. Chand Mahamamad Seikh and accordingly it is submitted that ready inference cannot be drawn that the admit card produced by the employee relates to himself or to some other person. 3.3 The learned counsel for the Railways submits that prayer for correction of the date of birth must be made within three years of joining service under the Clause 225(4)(III) of the Railways Establishment Code but in the present case, the prayer of correction of the birth date was first made only on 17.10.2006, 24 years after the employee joined service in the Railways on 07.08.1982. 4.1 On the other hand, Mr. I.H. Saikia, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the employee learnt of the incorrect date of birth recorded in his Service Book only in 2006 and that is why he failed to apply for correction at any earlier point of time in his service career. 4.1 On the other hand, Mr. I.H. Saikia, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the employee learnt of the incorrect date of birth recorded in his Service Book only in 2006 and that is why he failed to apply for correction at any earlier point of time in his service career. 4.2 The counsel for the employee refers to the copy of the Service Book to project that the signature of the staff was obtained when the requisite columns were kept blank and that is why the applicant was unaware of the incorrect entry in the Service Book. 4.3 Mr. I.H. Saikia as the employee’s lawyer submits that the applicant claims correction of his birth date on the basis of the admit card issued by the S.E.B.A. during the matriculation examination and since this is an acceptable document to be relied on for recording the birth date of an employee, the correction ordered by the Tribunal was justified on account of the belated awareness of the employee, on the incorrect entry in the Service Book. 5. The correction of the birth date in the Service Book was sought in the present case by placing reliance on the admit card issued in the name of Md. Chand Mahammad Seikh and since the applicant has himself signed his name in his Service Book as Md. Sanmahammad Ali, the concerned admit card cannot readily be connected to the employed person in the Railway. But without adequate explanation for this vital discrepancy (in the name of the applicant and the one mentioned in the admit card), the learned Tribunal according to us, undeservingly issued the order for correction of the birth date. 6. Unless it is duly established that the employee Md. Sanmahammad Ali is the same person (Chand Mahammad Seikh), mentioned in the admit Card produced by the employee, that document cannot be made the basis for ordering correction of the birth date. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned CAT without reconciliation of the two names, couldn’t have been allowed. 7. According to the birth date (01.01.1954) recorded in the Service Book of the employee, he was due to retire on 31.12.2013 but just on the eve of the retirement, the O.A. No. 274 of 2013 was filed by the employee for correction of his birth date in the Service Book. 7. According to the birth date (01.01.1954) recorded in the Service Book of the employee, he was due to retire on 31.12.2013 but just on the eve of the retirement, the O.A. No. 274 of 2013 was filed by the employee for correction of his birth date in the Service Book. Such belated claim should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and therefore, we hold that the impugned direction was erroneously issued on 24.12.2013, just seven days before the employee was due to go on superannuation. In this context, reliance on the ratio of Gendalal vs. Union of India, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 553 by the learned CAT appears to be misplaced since in the case before the Supreme Court, the employee represented against his wrong date of birth within 6 years of joining service but in the instant case, the representation came to be filed 24 years after the applicant joined the Railways. 8. As earlier noted, the applicant joined service on 07.08.1982 and according to him he learnt of the incorrect entry only in the year 2006. Yet the employee failed to seek legal remedy for long many years and only on the eve of his retirement, he approached the Tribunal. Therefore, the laches of the employee was apparent and the learned Tribunal should not have granted relief to such litigant for correction of his birth date (from 01.01.1954 to 01.03.1963) since this will extend his service tenure by extra ten years. 9. The correction of date of birth in the Service Book is contemplated under Clause 225(4)(III) of the Railways Establishment Code under certain circumstances but in the present case, the first application was filed only on 17.10.2016 whereas the employee entered service on 07.08.1982. Therefore, granting relief in such case by the Tribunal, in our opinion, was unwarranted particularly when, the employee approached the Tribunal just few months before his retirement. 10. In view of the above discussions, we find sufficient merit in the challenge made by the employer to the Tribunal’s verdict and accordingly the impugned order dated 24.12.2013 (Annexure-I) in the O.A. No. 274 of 2013 is quashed. In consequence, the date of birth of the employee should remain undisturbed as per the entry in the Service Book (01.01.1954). As the retired Gangman is yet to receive superannuation benefits, the Railways should take steps to disburse his retirement dues on that basis. In consequence, the date of birth of the employee should remain undisturbed as per the entry in the Service Book (01.01.1954). As the retired Gangman is yet to receive superannuation benefits, the Railways should take steps to disburse his retirement dues on that basis. It is ordered accordingly. 11. With the above order, this case stands disposed of without any order on cost.