JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to accept and affirm the date of birth of the petitioner as 2.1.1950 on the basis of which he has been granted voluntary retirement with effect from 24.5.2003 and for direction to the respondents to calculate all the terminal claim and compensations which are payable to the petitioner under the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme, on the basis of the aforesaid date of birth i.e. 2.1.1950 and refund all the amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner as per month under Government family pension scheme. 2. The brief facts, leading to filing of the writ application is that the petitioner was initially appointed as ‘Security Guard’ on casual basis vide letter dated 29.11.1968, issued under the signature of Personnel Officer, Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited, and he joined the same on 14.12.1968. Thereafter, services of the petitioner was taken in the permanent establishment of the Planning and Development Division of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of AZO-Helper in the Mechanical Department with effect from 18.10.1973. Since the petitioner was non matriculate while entering into service, he appeared in “Praveshika Examination’ in the year 1973, (equivalent to matriculation) conducted by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar and certificate of the same is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Azo-Printer Grade II (Mechanical), Azo-Printer Grade I (Mechanical), Senior Printer (Mechanical) and Assistant Foreman (D) with effect from 1.8.2001. The petitioner was posted under Projects and Development India Ltd at Sindiri. In the year 2002 Voluntary Retirement Scheme was floated by the Personnel and Administrative Department of PDIL and applications were invited from the employees of the PDIL as per Annxure-2 to the writ petition. In pursuance to the said scheme the petitioner submitted an application dated 11.3.2003 for voluntary retirement from the services of PDIL vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition and the application of the petitioner for grant of voluntary retirement was accepted by the management and the petitioner was permitted to be released from the services of the company with effect from 24.5.2003 as per Annexure-5 to the writ petition. After voluntary retirement from the company since all the retirement benefits was not paid to the petitioner on the ground of the disputed date of Birth, the petitioner submitted series of representations annexing the relevant documents staking his claim on date of birth to be 02.01.1950. To the utter surprise the petitioner received the letter dated 13.05.2008 issued by the Deputy Manager (P & A) PDIL, Sindri whereby he has been informed that since he has completed 58 years of age, as such he is not eligible to get pension under the EPS 1995, as per Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the unilateral decision of the respondents, the petitioner left with no alternative approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has strenuously urged that the respondents have unilaterally taken decision for accepting his date of birth as 11.09.1946 in spite of the facts that petitioner has submitted the relevant documents regarding date of birth to be 02.01.1950. The action of the respondents smacks of arbitrary exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is settled position of law that the respondent company could not have altered the date of birth of the petitioner without complying the principles of natural justice. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit it has been inter alia submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 15.09.1970 as a Security Guard and as he did not submit any paper in proof of his age, according to the provisions of the Order 6 of the Certified Standing Order of the respondent company, he was sent for medical examination where his date of birth was mentioned as 24 years on 14.09.1970, which was calculated to be as 11.09.1946. According to the provisions of the Standing order, the age of the workman as declared by him at the time of the employment and accepted by the management shall not be permitted to be altered thereafter or questioned by the workman. According to the provisions of the Standing order, the age of the workman as declared by him at the time of the employment and accepted by the management shall not be permitted to be altered thereafter or questioned by the workman. As he did not submit any certificate having passed matriculation at that time, his date of birth as per standing order declared by him or medical board was treated to be as final, but on 07.07.1976 he submitted a certificate of Zila School, Jagziwan Nagar, Dhanbad having passed the matriculation and date of birth as 02.01.1950 and in the writ petition the petitioner has suppressed this fact. Surprisingly on 10.12.1978, he submitted another certificate of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, Bihar having passed the Praveshika Examination (i.e. equivalent to matriculation) in the year 1973 and the date of Birth shown as 02.01.1950. Therefore, from the two certificates produced by him, it appears that he passed the Praveshika examination in 1973 but submitted the certificate on 10.12.1978 whereas according to Zila School, Dhanbad certificate, he passed matriculation in 1976 and submitted the certificate on 07.07.1976. He filed the certificate of Zila School, Dhanbad first on 07.07.1976 and the certificate of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, Bihar on 10.12.1978. Therefore, on record there are three certificates of his age. First, according to his own statement before Chief Medical Officer on 14.09.1970, second is Zila School, Dhanbad certificate submitted on 07.07.1976 and third is Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, Bihar submitted on 10.12.1978. It is apparent that these two certificates are false, fabricated and forged document and only the genuine age certificates remains is given by the Chief Medical Officer on 14.09.1970 as per Annexures-A, B and C of the counter affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit has assiduously submitted that the conduct of the petitioner appears to be unbecoming of an employee as he has taken prevaricating stand by producing two certificates at different point of time. Even though petitioner was cognizant of the fact that on the date of medical examination in the year 1970, his date of birth was recorded as 24 years, so the petitioner was conscious, cognizant and it was within his knowledge that the date of birth accepted by the respondent is 11.09.1946. 6. Even though petitioner was cognizant of the fact that on the date of medical examination in the year 1970, his date of birth was recorded as 24 years, so the petitioner was conscious, cognizant and it was within his knowledge that the date of birth accepted by the respondent is 11.09.1946. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that it is settled position of law that date of birth cannot be agitated at the fag end of service but herein in the instant case after taking voluntary retirement in the year 2003 the petitioner has filed writ petition almost after five years. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163 and (2006) 3 SCC 708 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to inter alia hold that the relationship of employer and employee ceased to exist when the employee left the job on his own accord. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner, due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I) Admittedly, at the time of joining the petitioner did not submit certificate regarding age proof, as per the relevant provisions of the standing order of the respondent-company, the petitioner was sent for medical examination for determination of age. It would be apposite to refer to relevant standing order: 6. Record of Age (a) All categories of workmen shall on first appointment submit as proof of age either the Matriculation or School Leaving Certificate or the Municipal Birth Certificate or Life Insurance Policy. (b) A workman who is unable to produce any of the above documents, shall state his age and make a written declaration that the age as stated by him is correct. Such workman shall be sent to the Medical Officer of the establishment free of cost for examination and his opinion as to the workman’s age shall be binding on the workman. (c) The age of the workman as declared by him at the time of his employment and as accepted by the Management shall not thereafter, be permitted to be altered or questioned by the workman. (c) The age of the workman as declared by him at the time of his employment and as accepted by the Management shall not thereafter, be permitted to be altered or questioned by the workman. In pursuance to the aforesaid provision of the standing order, in the absence of any proof of date of birth, the petitioner was subjected to medical test on 14.09.1970 by the Chief Medical Officer and his date of birth was determined as 24 years which was calculated to be his date of birth is 11.09.1946 as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. On perusal of the Annexure-A it would be quite apparent to notice that the petitioner has signed the said report as well as given his thumb impression on the said report, so petitioner was conscious and cognizant of the fact that his date of birth on the relevant date was 24 years. If 24 years is calculated certainly date of birth of the petitioner is 11.09.1946 and rightly the respondent company has accepted the date of birth of the petitioner as 11.09.1946. (II) In pursuance to the circular dated 15.11.2002 regarding the voluntary retirement, the petitioner applied for grant of voluntary retirement and accordingly on 23.05.2003 his application for voluntary retirement has been accepted and he has been released from services with effect from 24.05.2003 under voluntary retirement scheme, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Once he has voluntarily retired and got all the benefits flowing from the said scheme, the petitioner could not have staked his claim for alteration of date of birth and other benefits after much belated stage, and on that score, prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted. (III) The view of this Court, gets fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163 (A.K Bindal and Another vs. Union of India and Ors.) wherein at paragraph 34 it has been held as under: 34. This shows that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the scheme and his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or rights in the same. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in the business world it is known as “golden handshake”. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. If the employee is still permitted to raise a grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale from a retrospective date, even after he has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount paid to him, the whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be totally frustrated. (IV) On the same issue, another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2006) 3 SCC 708 (HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and Another vs. Heavy Engineering Corpn. Ltd and Ors.) wherein at paragraph 22 and 23, it has been held as under: 22. Financial considerations are, thus, a relevant factor both for floating of scheme of voluntary retirement as well as for revision of pay. Those employees who opted for voluntary retirement, make a planning for the future. At the time of giving option, they know where they stand. At that point of time they did not anticipate that they would get the benefit of revision in the scales of pay. They prepared themselves to contract out of the jural relationship by resorting to “golden handshake”. They are bound by their own act. The parties are bound by the terms of contract of voluntary retirement. We have noticed hereinbefore that unless a statute or statutory provision interdicts, the relationship between the parties to act pursuant to or in furtherance of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is governed by contract. By such contract, they can opt out of such other terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. We have noticed hereinbefore that unless a statute or statutory provision interdicts, the relationship between the parties to act pursuant to or in furtherance of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is governed by contract. By such contract, they can opt out of such other terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. In this case the terms and conditions of the contract are not governed by a statute or statutory rules. 23. The question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in A.K. Bindal v. Union of India wherein this Court took notice of the fact that in implementation of such a scheme a considerable amount has been paid to the employee ex gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts therefor. It has further been noticed that the payment of compensation is granted not for doing any work or rendition of service and in lieu of his leaving the services of the Company. 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and as a logical sequitur to the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.