JUDGMENT Chandrashekhar, J. – By a letter dated 26.07.2005, the petitioner was confirmed date of his superannuation from service w.e.f 31.08.2005. This letter has been impugned by the petitioner on the ground that the respondents have illegally fixed his date of superannuation, in particular, contrary to their own records. 2. At this stage itself, it needs to be recorded that the petitioner was intimated date of his superannuation from service, previously by a letter dated 05.02.2005. The petitioner was inducted in service under the respondent BCCL on 07.07.1978 as Dumper Operater. He claims that his actual and correct date of birth is 15.01.1948. This date appears in the service excerpts prepared by the respondent BCCL vide Annexure-2 and this is also reflected in the identity card issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-1. The respondent BCCL, however, has referred to the statutory Form B to contend that the petitioner''s date of birth for the purpose of his employment under the company is 18.08.1945, which is accepted by him by signing Form B. The identity card was issued on 28.11.1986 and the service excerpts on which the petitioner has placed reliance would disclose that at the time when it was prepared he was blessed with six children. The eldest one was aged about 15 years. He was inducted in service on 07.07.1978. Obviously, this document was prepared much after he was inducted in service. The Form B would disclose that he was transferred to Basta Colliery on 28.07.1999. In the Form B his age is recorded as 41 years as on 18.08.1986. The Last Pay Certificate issued to the petitioner also records his age as 41 years as on 18.08.1986. In the context of a conflict between the statutory Form B and other documents prepared by the employer, suffice would be to indicate that the statutory Form B would take precedence over any other document which is not statutory in nature unless, it is corroborated by an indisputable documentary evidence which was issued/prepared prior to the employee entering into the service and accepted by the employee. The petitioner more than two and half years after his superannuation from service has approached this Court. The petitioner more than two and half years after his superannuation from service has approached this Court. In " State of U.P. and Others v. 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. 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 service book......." 3. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity in the notice of superannuation dated 26.07.2005 and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.