ORDER : Aggrieved of notice of superannuation dated 28.06.2014, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard. 3. Referring to the decision in “Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s B.C.C.L. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad and Others” reported in 2007 (3) JLJR 726 , the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the school leaving certificate and admit card which have been produced by the petitioner in the present proceeding, order of superannuation of the petitioner on 31.10.2014 would cause immense injustice to him in as much as, more than one year prior to his actual date of superannuation he has been made to retire from service. It is contended in the view of the Implementation Instruction No. 76, the date of birth recorded in the school leaving certificate has to be taken as the correct date of birth and while so, the petitioner's correct date of birth shall be 01.01.1956, and not 16.10.1954. 4. Pursuant to order dated 09.01.2017, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL has produced a copy of the personal data form of the petitioner. Photo copy thereof be tagged at proper place. 5. The facts narrated in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner was taken in service of the respondent-BCCL on 16.10.1980. He has claimed that in the school leaving certificate issued from Kunkubai Khatau High School, Mahuda his date of birth is recorded as 01.01.1956. Referring to the personal data form of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the said form also the qualification of the petitioner is recorded as Class-IX. Be that as it may, in the personal data form the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 16.10.1954. The school leaving certificate produced by the petitioner was issued on 30.01.1991. The petitioner has pleaded that the original school leaving certificate issued prior to his appointment under M/s BCCL has decomposed and therefore, he obtained a duplicate copy of the school leaving certificate. It needs to be recorded that the school leaving certificate which has been issued on 30.01.1991 does not mention that it is a duplicate copy. The admit card allegedly signed by the headmaster on 25.07.1967 bears a stamp of 04.11.1999. The plea taken by the petitioner that the original school leaving certificate has decomposed, cannot be verified at this stage. It needs to be recorded that the school leaving certificate which has been issued on 30.01.1991 does not mention that it is a duplicate copy. The admit card allegedly signed by the headmaster on 25.07.1967 bears a stamp of 04.11.1999. The plea taken by the petitioner that the original school leaving certificate has decomposed, cannot be verified at this stage. In view of the inconsistent documents produced by the petitioner, no enquiry for verifying the genuineness of the school leaving certificate is required in the instant case. The date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the personal data form, that is, 16.10.1954, in the aforesaid facts must be considered conclusive. Merely because the petitioner has pleaded that his actual and correct date of birth is 01.01.1956, it cannot be concluded that his superannuation from service on 31.10.2014 would cause injustice to the petitioner. Considering the documents brought on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to produce an unimpeachable document which would conclusively establish that his date of birth is 01.01.1956. The plea raised by the petitioner founded on Implementation Instruction No. 76 is misconceived. The aforesaid plea can be raised only in cases the claim is supported by unimpeachable document. As noticed above, the petitioner has failed to produce indisputable document on the basis of which his date of birth as allegedly recorded in the school leaving certificate vide Annexure2 can be taken as his correct date of birth. In the light of these facts, it is apparent that decision in Kamta Pandey case is not attracted in the present case. In “State of U.P. and Others Vs. Gulaichi (Smt.)” reported in (2003) 6 SCC 483 , a case in which the employee applied for correction of date of birth as recorded in service book at the verge of retirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “9. ............. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of the date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. ............. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of the date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his servicebook. .............” 6. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.