JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the notice of superannuation contained in letter dated 07.05.2018, issued by the respondent No. 5, by which the respondents have directed the petitioner to retire on 31.08.2018. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as Tub Loader in the Rajmahal Group of Mines, Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Lalmatiya, Santhal Pargana (now Godda). The petitioner was appointed in place of his sister, Raimani Lohar. It is the case of the petitioner that first identity card was issued to the petitioner on the basis of old Form ‘B’ showing his age as 18 years as on the date of appointment i.e. on 25.08.1980. It has been further stated that authority concerned issued 2nd identity card to the petitioner bearing No. 798, showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 25.08.1958. It is the specific case of the petitioner that without any document and without verification of age, an imaginary date of birth has been entered in the 2nd identify card issued by the Respondents. As the actual date of birth of the petitioner is in the year 1962, the same should be considered to be treated as date of birth for superannuating the petitioner on completion of 60 years of age but the petitioner has illegally been made to superannuate on 31.08.2018, considering his date of birth as 25.08.1958. As the respondents have never considered the date of birth of petitioner as 1962, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court. 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner has illegally been made to retire on an imaginary date of birth entered in his 2nd identify card. Learned counsel further argues that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is in the year 1962. The date of birth entered in the 2nd identity card has been recorded without verifying any document as no document was ever submitted by the petitioner and on the basis of said date of birth, the petitioner has been made to retire on 31.08.2018. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-ECL, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-ECL, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Lala submits that the date of birth as mentioned in the statutory Form ‘B’ is 25.08.1958 and the said date of birth has been accepted and acknowledged by the petitioner throughout his service career and it is only at the time of retirement, objection has been made regarding variations in the date of birth on the ground that date of birth mentioned in the 1st identify card is 1962 and as such, the respondents be directed to correct the said date of birth considering the date which has been mentioned in the identity card. Learned counsel submits that it is a settled principle of law that no disputes regarding date of birth can be raised either by the Employer or by the Employee at the fag end of service career. If the petitioner is aggrieved by his date of birth, he could have approached the respondent-authorities within a period of 10 years from the date of his appointment, which was the maximum period for inviting any objections regarding correction in the date of birth. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference since the date of birth which has been mentioned in the statutory Form ‘B’ has all along been accepted by the petitioner throughout his service career and it is only at the fag end of his service, the petitioner has raised objection regarding variations in the date of birth. It is a settled principle of law that the date of birth entered in the statutory Form ‘B’ is the valid proof of date of birth and the same cannot be altered or modified at the fag end of service career of an employee. In catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court has held that no correction can be done in the date of birth at the fag end of service career. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para-12 in case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. [( 2010 14 SCC 423 ] has held that, “12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para-12 in case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. [( 2010 14 SCC 423 ] has held that, “12. Apart from the notification and the said instruction this Court in a series of cases has categorically laid down that the employees should not be permitted to change the date of birth at the fag end of their service career. In the instant case, the application of alteration has been filed at the fag end of his service career after a lapse of twenty eight years.” 7. As the petitioner has already retired on 31.08.2018, his claim cannot be entertained at this stage. No interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and hence, it is dismissed. 9. No order as to costs.