JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 6.2.2009 whereby the petitioner has been asked to retire on 1.8.2009 on the basis of a fictitious date of birth which is contrary to the date of birth mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate duly verified by the respondents. The petitioner has further prayed for reinstating him in service with back wages. 2. The brief facts as has been described in the writ application is that the petitioner joined service in the year 1982 in view of the appointment letter issued to him dated 30.1.1982 containing various terms and conditions. After complying the said terms and conditions, the petitioner got his first posting as Trainee Auto Electrician at Jogta Fire Project vide office order dated 14.5.1982. Inadvertently, at the time of joining, the date of birth was wrongly recorded as 3.7.1949 though, his date of birth as per School records was mentioned as 3.7.1954. The petitioner was not aware of the fact that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded in the Form-B and service excerpt. After coming to know about the erroneous entry, the petitioner immediately submitted representation for correction of date of birth by Annexure-3 to the writ application. It has further been averred that the petitioner received the impugned retirement notice dated 6.2.2009 and he came to know that his date of birth has been wrongly entered into the Form-B and the service excerpt as 3.7.1949 has not been corrected and as such the petitioner was asked to retire on 1.8.2009 as per the retirement notice dated 6.2.2009 vide Annexure-4. After receipt of the said retirement notice, the petitioner through Union Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh preferred representation. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to submit School Leaving Certificate as per implementation instruction 76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement and the petitioner deposited the transfer certificate issued to him prior to his joining BCCL i.e. 3.7.1979 and thereafter, School Leaving Certificate was sent for verification before the concerned school and the concerned school vide letter dated 11.6.2010 gave a certificate that indeed the transfer certificate no. 73 dated 3.7.1979 was issued by the school wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 3.7.1954. 73 dated 3.7.1979 was issued by the school wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 3.7.1954. But to the utter surprise the petitioner was informed vide order dated 27.12.2011 that his case for correction of his date of birth has been rejected by the respondents on account of fact that correction of date of birth on the basis of School Leaving Certificate is not covered under the provisions of 1.1.76. It has further been averred that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the Implementation Instruction No. 76 as per Annexure-9 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned retirement notice, the petitioner left with no other alternative remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the respondents should have determined the date of birth basing on the School Leaving Certificate but not in the erroneous entry made in the Form-B register. Therefore, the action of the respondents in prematurely retiring the petitioner amounts to arbitrary exercise of power being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Repudiating the submissions made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that the writ petition contains disputed question of facts and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and also there has been inordinate delay and laches. The petitioner superannuated on 1.8.2009 and the writ petition has been filed almost after lapse of 3 years. It has further been submitted that it is well settled principle of law that dispute relating to date of birth cannot be raised at the fag end of service and in the instant case, the dispute has been raised after three years of superannuation. Therefore, on that score, the writ petition is not entertainable. It has further been submitted that date of birth of the petitioner was rightly entered into the service records of the petitioner and the petitioner has no complaint at any stage subsequent to his appointment. The petitioner acknowledged and accepted that his date of birth as 3.7.1949 and the petitioner did not produce any records relating to date of birth at the time of joining. The petitioner acknowledged and accepted that his date of birth as 3.7.1949 and the petitioner did not produce any records relating to date of birth at the time of joining. The date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 3.7.1949 in the Form-B register and the service excerpt. It has further been stated that the petitioner has been superannuated on the basis of the statutory Form-B register maintained under Section 48 of the Mines Act. The respondents are bound by the provisions contained in Implementation Instruction No. 76 regarding verification of the age of the employees which can be made at two different stages namely at the time of appointment or after appointment in respect of existing employees. The petitioner never produced the certificate at the time of his appointment. The petitioner always accepted the date of birth as 3.7.1949 and never disputed the same. Hence, at the time of appointment, the petitioner had produced the concerned School Leaving Certificate then provisions of clause (A)(ii) would have been attracted. Further clause (B) clearly provides that in respect to existing employees only Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate or middle pass certificate issued by the recognized Universities/Board would be acceptable. Admit Cards issued by the said bodies are also acceptable as they are issued by the said bodies prior to the date of appointment. All steps taken subsequent to retirement of the petitioner in July, 2009 are infructuous and not binding upon the respondents. Moreover, the petitioner has also accepted his retirement and received the Provident Fund amount. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter-affidavit has submitted that the issue relating to date of birth dispute after retirement from services cannot be the matter of adjudication because of series of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the retirement notice dated 6.2.2009 due to the following facts and reasons:- (I) The date of birth has been recorded in Form-B register as 3.7.1949, accordingly the notice of retirement has been issued to the petitioner for superannuation, Form-B is per Section 48 of the Mines Act, the date of birth recorded in the Form-B is conclusive. Therefore, there is no absolutely illegality and infirmity in the impugned retirement notice so as to call for any interference. (II) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Union of India vs. Harnam Singh reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162 , Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Others vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar & Another reported in (1995)4 SCC 172 , State of Maharashtra & Another vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. reported in (2010) 14 SCC 423 and State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Premlal Shrivas reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 have been pleased to consistently hold that the Court should be loath to issue direction for correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service career. 7. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and as logical sequitur to the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the notice of the retirement of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.