ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for correction in date of birth which has wrongly been recorded in the service excerpts as 20.03.1948 whereas it should have been 04.09.1952 as per School Leaving Certificate. Further prayer has been made for quashing the reasoned order dated 20.8.2011 as well as 4.10.2011. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the instant writ petition is that petitioner was appointed on 04.01.1971 as a "Drill Khalasi' and thereafter, he has been continuously working to the satisfaction of the respondents. It is case of the petitioner that date of birth at the time of appointment was wrongly entered as 20.03.1948 whereas it ought to have been entered as 04.09.1952. Wrong entry was done by making entry in Personnel Form at the time of appointment of the petitioner. It is specific case of the petitioner that he was Class-5 passed and his date of birth recorded in School Leaving Certificate is mentioned as 04.09.1952. It has been stated that for the first time in the year 1987, petitioner was communicated regarding his date of birth in the Service excerpts as 20.03.1948 and as such, objection was made by the petitioner for correction of the same as it has wrongly been entered as 20.03.1948 in place of 04.09.1952. When no heed was paid to the objection of the petitioner, he made several representations but nothing was done and no steps were taken regarding correction of date of birth, which was wrongly entered in the service book. It has also been mentioned that petitioner appeared in the matriculation examination with due permission of the respondents but finally he could not succeed and in the year 1991, a School Certificate was given to him which also indicates his date of birth as 04.09.1952. Petitioner was served with a copy of notice of superannuation as he had attained the age of 60 years as per records of the respondents. Petitioner was served with a copy of notice of superannuation as he had attained the age of 60 years as per records of the respondents. As petitioner had not completed the age of 60 years taking into account his date of birth as 04.09.1952, he knocked door of this Court in the year 2008 vide W.P. (S) No. 1698 of 2008 which was disposed of on 20.6.2011 with a direction to the respondents to consider case of the petitioner in view of implementation of Instruction No.76 and also in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey v. BCCL and others, reported in 2007 (3) JCR 681 (Jhr) : 2007 (3) JLJR 726 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The order of this Court was duly complied and reasoned order was passed vide orders dated 20.08.2011 and 04.10.2011 rejecting claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has again knocked door of this Court. 4. Mr. Amit Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that without any basis and any document, the respondents have made a wrong entry into the service excerpts mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.03.1948 whereas it should have been 04.09.1952. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner had objected regarding the wrong entry since the date of birth was made known to him as back as in the year 1987 itself. Learned counsel further argues that in view of Full Bench decision of this Court and Implementation Instruction No.76 and also in view of specific direction of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1698 of 2008, disposed of on 20.06.2011, the non-consideration of case of the petitioner is wholly illegal and arbitrary and not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that respondents have flouted the order of this Court by not considering case of the petitioner and by not correcting the date of birth, which ought to have been mentioned as 04.09.1952 instead of 20.03.1948. By non-correction of date of birth of the petitioner, he has been made to suffer a lot and has been put to monetary loss and made to retire much prior to his actual date of retirement. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. By non-correction of date of birth of the petitioner, he has been made to suffer a lot and has been put to monetary loss and made to retire much prior to his actual date of retirement. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and further argues that in no way date of birth of the petitioner can be corrected at the fag end of his service. Learned counsel further submits that even if Service Code is taken into consideration, any objection has to be made within a period of ten years whereas, in the instant case, petitioner has raised objection after more than 16 years, which cannot be accepted for correction in the date of birth. Learned counsel further argues that case of Kamta Pandey (supra) is not attracted in the case as it talks of Matriculation Certification. Petitioner never produced matriculation certificate or even School Leaving Certificate at the time of his appointment and it is not a case of the petitioner that he had produced the School Leaving Certificate at the time of appointment and the same was not taken into consideration and wrong entry of date of birth has been made. Learned counsel further submits that this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a catena of decision, has held that the date of birth cannot be corrected at the fag end of service. Learned counsel submits that in view of settled principles of law, no interference is required in this writ petition and the writ petition merits dismissal. 6. Having gone through rival contention of the parties and after perusing the records, I am of the considered view that this writ petition has no merit and no interference is required in the writ petition on the following grounds : (i) Petitioner is harping on the date of birth mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate but no averment has been made in the writ petition to that effect. (ii) The cases relied upon by the petitioner is not attracted in the instant case, in the case of Kamta Pandey (supra) the Full Bench of this Court has clearly held that the Matriculation Certificate can be taken for the purposes of date of birth only when it is submitted at the time of appointment. (ii) The cases relied upon by the petitioner is not attracted in the instant case, in the case of Kamta Pandey (supra) the Full Bench of this Court has clearly held that the Matriculation Certificate can be taken for the purposes of date of birth only when it is submitted at the time of appointment. Even Instruction No. 76 is also not attracted in the instant case. The Hon'ble Apex Court, affirming the order of this Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw reported in 2014 (3) JCR 160 (SC) : (2014) 12 SCC 570 clearly held that if the School Leaving Certificate or the certificate on which the employee is claiming the date of birth is not submitted at the time of appointment the same cannot be accepted. It has further been held that no correction is allowed to be made at the fag end of service. (iii) Petitioner approached this Court after his superannuation in the year 2008 i.e. at the fag end of his service career and in the year 2018, no direction can be given for correction in date of birth of an employee who retired in the year 2008. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, legal proposition, I find no merits in the instant writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.