JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 09.05.2008, by which, the claim of the petitioner for correction in date of birth as 20.04.1957 instead of 05.02.1949 has been rejected and also for quashing the impugned order dated 18.08.2008, by which, a notice has been issued for retirement from the services w.e.f 28.02.2009 and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to continue the petitioner till the age of 60 years to be counted from 20.04.1957. 2. Heard Mr. Dipak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1971 and certificate to that effect was also issued by Bihar School Examination Board showing his date of birth to be 20.04.1957 and after joining the service in the year 1971, while the petitioner was posted at Sirka Colliery, he submitted the said certificate before the respondents-authorities. However, when the petitioner came to know about the wrong entry of his date of birth in his service excerpts, he immediately submitted representation for correction in date of birth but it did not evoke any response. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Rule N.C.W.A 3 submit that correction of date of birth has to be done in terms of Matriculation Certificate or equivalent prior to appointment and in the case at hand admittedly, the petitioner obtained the certificate prior to securing appointment. It has further been submitted that even the certificate produced by the petitioner was examined and Bihar School Examination Board vide letter dated 16.03.2005 has found the certificate to be genuine one and his date of birth to be 20.04.1957. Referring to Implementation Instruction No. 76, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that matriculation certificate should be treated as correct provided it is obtained prior to date of employment. 4. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner referred the Full Bench judgment rendered in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s B.C.C.L & Ors as reported in 2007 (3) JLJR 726 (F.B.). 5. 4. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner referred the Full Bench judgment rendered in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s B.C.C.L & Ors as reported in 2007 (3) JLJR 726 (F.B.). 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the service book of the petitioner date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 05.02.1949, and in token of acceptance, the petitioner has put his thumb-mark and signature thereon. Thereafter, in the service excerpts in the year 1987, he mentioned his date of birth as 05.02.1949 and in the remarks column to make any comment, he did not raise any objection rather as a token of acceptance he put his signature thereof. It has further been submitted that at the fag end of service vide application dated 03.07.2004, the petitioner raised a dispute with regard to date of birth and vide letter dated 10.08.2004 issued by the Sr. Personnel Officer, Rajrappa, the petitioner was informed that he did not submit his matriculation certificate at the time of opening service book. Thereafter, the petitioner raised industrial dispute and without waiting the outcome of industrial dispute raised by him, he knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 4123 of 2005 which was disposed of vide order dated 02.09.2005 giving liberty to the petitioner to submit representation before the respondents including Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hazaribagh. With the liberty aforesaid the petitioner submitted representation dated 15.10.2005 before respondents-authorities, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 09.05.2008 after considering the materials available on record. It has further been submitted that no change of date of birth is permissible at the fag end of service. 6. With the liberty aforesaid the petitioner submitted representation dated 15.10.2005 before respondents-authorities, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 09.05.2008 after considering the materials available on record. It has further been submitted that no change of date of birth is permissible at the fag end of service. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and having bestowed my anxious consideration to the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I).Admittedly, in the case at hand, the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment did not submit his matriculation certificate and in all the service excerpts including service book he mentioned his date of birth as 05.02.1949 and in token of acceptance he put his signature and did not demur knowing fully well that his date of birth is mentioned as 05.02.1949 in all service excerpts. After serving about three and half decades, he at the fag end of service claims his date of birth to be 20.04.1957 basing on matriculation certificate, alleged to be obtained prior to appointment. (ii).Be that as it may be, the Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again has deprecated the correction of date of date of birth at the fag end of service and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar & Anr as reported in AIR 1995 SC 1499 has held that correction of date of birth at the fag end of service with object of continuing in service ordinarily should not be entertained. (iii).In the instant case, the petitioner has challenged for correction in date of birth at the fag end of service and on this score alone, this Court is not inclined to exercise the judicial discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors Vs. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors Vs. R. Kirubakaran as reported in (1994)Suppl 1 SCC 155, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to inter alia hold that whenever an application for alteration of date of birth is made on the eve of superannuation or near about that time, the Court or the Tribunal concerned should be more cautious because of growing tendency amongst a section of public servants, to raise such a dispute, without explaining as to why this question was not raised earlier. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr Vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors as reported in (2010) 14 SCC 423 and further in the case of State of T.N. vs. T.V Venugopalan as reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 wherein the Hon'ble Court is consistently of the same and similar view that alteration in date of birth cannot be challenged at the fag end of service. (iv).So far as case laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Kamta Pandey (supra) is concerned, it has been passed in different context and is of no help to the petitioner. Furthermore, Implementation Instruction No. 76, as referred by the petitioner is concerned, the same is applicable to existing employee and the petitioner as stated at the bar retired in the year 2009 itself, hence, it also does not come to rescue the petitioner. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I am of the opinion that the writ application does not warrant any interference by this Court and the same is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.