JUDGMENT Chandrashekhar, J. – Challenging the superannuation notice dated 19/20.02.2015 whereby the petitioner was intimated that he would superannuate from service on 31.07.2015, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner was appointed on 31.07.1978 as General Mazdoor under the National Coal Mines Development Corporation and subsequently, he came under the employment of the respondent-CCL. He claims that he raised a dispute in respect of his date of birth and the respondents vide letter dated 30.11.1993 referred his Matriculation certificate for verification to Bihar Secondary School Examination Board, Patna. He claims that he made a representation on 14.01.1994 for correction of his date of birth, however, the respondents did not take a decision in the matter. In the above facts, Mr. A. K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not a case in which an employee has raised a dispute at the fag end of his service. It is contended that the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the Matriculation certificate in terms of Implementation Instruction No. 76 is conclusive and while so, the superannuation notice dated 19/20.02.2015 was illegally issued. 4. It is not disputed by the petitioner that at the time of his appointment he underwent medical examination for assessment of his age. His age was assessed as 23 years as on 31.07.1978. The respondents have fixed the date of birth of the petitioner as 31.07.1955 on the basis of his age assessed by the Medical Board. The petitioner appears to have admitted that at the time of his appointment he did not submit Matriculation certificate (refer, rejoinder affidavit). Evidently, the date of birth as recorded in his Matriculation certificate would not have been entered in the service records. The petitioner has taken a plea that only when a copy of the service-excerpts was furnished to him in the year, 1987 he had an opportunity to raise a dispute, which he duly recorded in the service-excerpts, however, the respondent-CCL did not take cognizance of his objection and consequently, he submitted a representation on 14.01.1994 for correction of his date of birth in the service records under the respondent-CCL. At this stage itself, it needs to be clarified that inaction on the part of an employer in not deciding an objection raising a dispute of date of birth is primarily taken note of only for ascertaining whether it was the employee who had raised a dispute at the fag end of his service. On admitted facts, the petitioner was subjected to medical examination and his age was recorded as 23 years as on 31.07.1978, and on that basis the employer has recorded his date of birth as 31.07.1955. In the above facts, on the basis of Matriculation certificate, even though genuineness of which has been challenged by the respondent CCL but not conclusively decided, the petitioner cannot seek correction in his date of birth. Other contemporaneous documents such as, Form PS 3 and Form PS 4 also record his date of birth as 31.07.1955. The petitioner by writing his date of birth as 31.07.1955 in the above forms has accepted date of his birth as recorded in the service records of the respondent-CCL and while so, that should be his date of birth for the purpose of his employment under the respondents. 5. Finding no infirmity in the superannuation notice dated 19/20.02.2015, writ petition is dismissed.