JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order/notice dated 2.11.2015, whereby he has been informed that having attained the age of superannuation, he would retire on 30.4.2016. 2. Petitioner contends that his correct date of birth is 2.3.1962, and therefore, the notice is bad in law. 3. Perusal of the record goes to show that duplicate service book has been prepared in respect of the petitioner, in which his date of birth is mentioned as 1.5.1956. Petitioner submits that this entry in the service book was factually incorrect and came to his notice for the first time in May, 2010. He further submits that at that point of time, petitioner was pressing his claim for regularization. Petitioner moved an application on 8.5.2010, and a subsequent application was also moved on 15.2.2016, but no decision has been taken. Present writ petition has now been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that such stale claim, at the fag end of one's career is not liable to be entertained, in view of the law settled. 5. Admittedly, petitioner has not disputed that alleged incorrect entry in his date of birth was within his knowledge since May, 2010. A cause of action, as per the petitioner himself, had arisen at that stage. Petitioner, however, apart from filing of an alleged representation, has done nothing further, and it is only after he has been served with a notice of retirement that the present writ petition has been filed. In case petitioner was aggrieved by entry of his date of birth in the service book and no decision was taken upon the representation, it was expected that petitioner would take appropriate steps for redressal of his grievance, but no such steps were taken. 6. Law is settled that at the fag end of one's career, applications for correction in the date of birth is not liable to be entertained. Even otherwise, under the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment Service (Determination of the Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, an entry in the service book would have to be treated as authenticate proof of age. In the present case, petitioner has only passed class VIIth and it appears that original service book is not traceable/available and that is why a duplicate service book had been prepared containing petitioner's date of birth as 1.5.1956. 7. In the present case, petitioner has only passed class VIIth and it appears that original service book is not traceable/available and that is why a duplicate service book had been prepared containing petitioner's date of birth as 1.5.1956. 7. The proposition of law, aforesaid, has been laid down in a recent decision by the Division Bench in Special Appeal Defective No.160 of 2016, decided on 29.2.2016. 8. In the facts and circumstances, as have been noticed above, the attempt on part of the petitioner to seek amendment in his date of birth at the eve of his superannuation is not liable to be entertained. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.