JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. The petitioner, after his retirement from the service of the respondents, has filed the instant petition for correction of his date of birth in the official record after quashing the order dated 29.7.2008, Annexure P3, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be retired from service on the basis of his date of birth so entered in the official record. 2. The petitioner initially worked on BSL project under the administrative control of Beas Control Board (BCB) w.e.f. 30.7.1969 to 15.9.1977 and at the time of joining in the BCB got recorded his date of birth as 15.4.1950. On completion of the work of BCB, the petitioner was retrenched from service after complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be appointed on BSL project under the administrative control of Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) w.e.f. 15.11.1991. At the time of his appointment in BBMB, he had submitted a discharge certificate in proof of his date of birth as 15.4.1950 and the same was duly recorded in the service record. Not only this, by taking the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.4.1950, the respondents had granted him three extensions after he had already completed the age of 55 years. Till that stage, the petitioner did not object or make a representation regarding correction of his date of birth and it is only when, he was about to superannuate, he filed Civil Suit No. 67/2008 for correction of his date of birth in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.1, Sundernagar. The respondents contested the suit by filing written statement and in teeth of averments therein, the petitioner found it more advisable to withdraw the civil suit, however, surprisingly this fact has not been mentioned in the present writ petition. 3. Now, therefore, the moot question is whether the petitioner can seek correction of his date of birth, especially when he has retired from service and in regard thereto had throughout his service career with the respondents never assailed the date in accordance with the Rules. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 5. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 5. The entire law on the subject of correction of date of birth has been elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, (2014) 12 SCC 570 and the relevant observations as contained in paras 8 and 9 of the judgment read thus: 9. In the corpus of service law over a period of time, a certain approach towards date of birth disputes has emerged in wake of the decisions of this Court as an impact created by the change in date of birth of an employee is akin to the far reaching ripples created when a single piece of stone is dropped into the water. This Court has succinctly laid down the same in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department vs. R. Kirubakaran (supra), which is as under: "7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their dates of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The court or the tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior." The same approach had been followed by this Court while deciding on date of birth disputes irrespective of the relief being in favour of the workman or the employer. (See: State of Punjab vs. S.C. Chadha, State of U.P. & Anr. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyay, State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi, State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Goraknath Sitaram Kamble) 10. (See: State of Punjab vs. S.C. Chadha, State of U.P. & Anr. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyay, State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi, State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Goraknath Sitaram Kamble) 10. Another practice followed by the courts regarding such disputes is that date of birth of an employee is determined as per the prescribed applicable rules or framework existing in the organization. Even this Court inspite of the extraordinary powers conferred under Article 136 has decided date of birth disputes in accordance with the applicable rules and seldom has the Court determined the date of birth as it is a question of fact fit to be determined by the appropriate forum. (See: State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Goraknath Sitaram Kamble & Ors.[7] Registrar General, High Court of Madras vs. M. Manickam & Ors.[8] High Court of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Sanyasi Rao[9] ) 6. It is not in dispute that services of the employees of the respondents with regard to date of birth and its correction are governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules. It is apposite here to refer to Rule 2.5 Note 3 read with Annexure 'A' Vol. 1, Part 1, which reads as under: "The date of birth given by an employee in his application form submitted to a recruited agency viz the Punjab Public Service Commission or the Punjab Subordinate Service Board or Deptt. Selection Committee as the case may be, shall be treated as final no change in it shall be allowed after entry into government service. (Read with 'Annexure-A')" 7. As regards administrative action qua alteration in the date of birth, Annexure 'A' is final and the relevant portion thereof reads as under: "In regard to the date of birth, a declaration of age made at the time or for the purpose of entry into government service shall, as against the Government employee in question, be deemed to be conclusive. The employee already in the service of the Government of Punjab on the date of coming into force of the Punjab Civil Service (First Amendment) Rules, Volume I, 1994, may apply for the change of date of birth within a period of two years from the coming into force of these rules on the basis of confirmatory documentary evidence such as Matriculation Certificate or Municipal Birth Certificate etc. No request for the change of date of birth shall be entertained after the expiry of the said period of two years. Government however reserves the right to make a correction in the recorded age of a Government employee at any time against the interest of Government employee when it is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book or in the History of service of a Gazetted Government employee is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded with the object that the Government employee may derive some unfair advantage there from." 8. It is evident from the aforesaid Rule that the correction of date of birth, if any, could have only been made on the representation of the petitioner; provided the same is made within 2 years of entry into government service or at best within any further reasonable time, if no time had been fixed under the Service Rules, but under no circumstances, can the petitioner object his date of birth after his retirement. 9. This issue has been explicitly dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court more than 2 1/2 decades ago in Union of India vs. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 , wherein it was observed as under: "7. A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispersed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of latches or stale claims, is generally applied to by the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age." 10. The petitioner would then refer to his school leaving certificate, wherein date of birth, according to him, has been given as 15.4.1954 and not 15.4.1950 to buttress his claim. 11. It was nearly three decades ago, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. vs. M. Hayagreev Sarma, (1990) 2 SCC 682 , held that the subsequent claim for alteration after commencement of the rules even on the basis of extracts of entry contained in births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 was not open. 12. Similar reiteration of law can be found in the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadrak (R&B) Division vs. Rangadhar Mallik, (1993) Supp1 SCC 763, Home Deptt. vs. R. Kirubakaran, (1994) Supp1 SCC 155, State of U.P. vs. Gulaichi, (2003) 6 SCC 483 and State of T.N. vs. T.V.Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 . 13. That apart, admittedly the petitioner, earlier to his appointment with respondents, had worked with BCB w.e.f. 30.7.1969 to 15.9.1977. vs. R. Kirubakaran, (1994) Supp1 SCC 155, State of U.P. vs. Gulaichi, (2003) 6 SCC 483 and State of T.N. vs. T.V.Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 . 13. That apart, admittedly the petitioner, earlier to his appointment with respondents, had worked with BCB w.e.f. 30.7.1969 to 15.9.1977. Now, if his date of birth was 15.4.1954 and not 15.4.1950, as is being vehemently claimed by the petitioner, then it is impossible to fathom as to how his services could have been engaged by BCB at the age of about 15 years and he being minor at that time, under no circumstances, could have been legally appointed. 14. In addition thereto, admittedly the petitioner, while in service of BCB, did not take any steps whatsoever to get his date of birth corrected and the reason for the same is obvious because in case his service record would have been corrected on the basis of date of birth, then obviously his services were bound to be terminated being a minor. 15. The matter does not end here as it is admitted case of the parties that based upon the date of birth of the petitioner, in the service record showing him to be born in the year 1950, he after attaining the age of superannuation on completion of 55 years, was granted three successive continuations and even during this period, he did not object to the date of birth recorded in his service record and is, therefore, estopped from seeking correction thereof after his retirement. 16. Additionally, the present petition is otherwise not maintainable as the civil suit filed by the petitioner had been unconditionally withdrawn by him and would thus operate as a bar for filing a writ petition on the same and similar cause of action. 17. Another fact which cannot be ignored is that in the year 2000, the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit No. 158/2000 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.2, Mandi regarding his promotion on the basis of reservation for OBC category. In that suit, the petitioner himself had relied upon seniority list wherein his date of birth was shown as 15.4.1950, but yet he did not agitate the same, though it is a different matter that the suit was eventually dismissed in default on 6.3.2009. 18. Division), Court No.2, Mandi regarding his promotion on the basis of reservation for OBC category. In that suit, the petitioner himself had relied upon seniority list wherein his date of birth was shown as 15.4.1950, but yet he did not agitate the same, though it is a different matter that the suit was eventually dismissed in default on 6.3.2009. 18. In addition to what has been observed above, this petition is not maintainable as the conduct of the petitioner is not above board. While in service of the respondents, not only were there interpolations in the service book of the petitioner regarding date of birth, but even the discharge certificate was removed from the service record. It does not need Solomon's wisdom or any guess work as to whose handy work was it, particularly when the petitioner alone was beneficiary of such acts. 19. It also needs to be mentioned here that during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to take instructions from his client whether he would still like to press the petition in light of the reply of the respondents and stated that he had positive instructions to argue the petition. 20. From the aforesaid discussions, it is evident that not only the petition filed by the petitioner is frivolous, but even his conduct not only with the respondents but even before this Court has not been fair much less above board. 21. The petitioner has intentionally concealed the fact regarding his earlier employment with BCB wherein his date of birth was shown as 15.4.1950. He has also concealed the fact that he had earlier filed a civil suit for the same and similar relief, which after receipt of written statement of the respondents, was unconditionally withdrawn by him. 22. Normally, this was a fit case where the criminal prosecution ought to be ordered against the petitioner for tampering with the official record, however, I refrain from passing any order to this effect taking into consideration that the petitioner has not only retired from service of the respondents, but is currently a senior citizen of about 65 years of age. 23. 23. For the forging reasons, not only the writ petition is devoid of merit, but the same is gross abuse of process of Court and is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Himachal Pradesh High Court Bar Association within one month, failing which it shall be open to the Himachal Pradesh High Court Bar Association to execute this order by filing an execution petition. Pending applications, if any, also stands dismissed. 24. A Copy of this judgment be supplied to the Secretary, Himachal Pradesh High Court Bar Association, free of costs.