ORDER : In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 a.m. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the Award dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder it is held that demand of Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress from the Management of M/s BCCL for correction of the date of birth of Ram Prasad, Dumper Operator as 2.5.1949 in place of 1.7.1943 is not legal and justified. 3. As per factual matrix, the petitioner was initially appointed by the erstwhile National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. in the year 1968 at NCDC’s Sudamdih Shaft Mine, as a General Mazdoor. At the time of his appointment in 1968 he had produced school leaving certificate and accordingly his date of birth was recorded as 2.5.1949 in the statutory records of the establishment. In the year 1974-75 the Management of Sudamdih of the then NCDC issued Identity Card to the concerned workman but the column of date of birth was left blank, although date of birth was available in the statutory records of the Sudamdih establishment. After receiving the Identity Card, the concerned workmen has been representing the Management to mention date of birth on the body of the Identity Card and also in his Identity Card Register but it has not been done. Hence, the petitioner approached the concerned Department of Central Government and the Central Government vide its Order No.L-20012/59/2003-I.R. (C-1) dated 18.8.2003, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-sec. (1) and sub-sec. (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute for adjudication with following terms: “Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress from the Management of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. for correction of the date of birth of Sri Ram Prasad, Dumper Operator, 2.5.1949 in place of 1.7.1943 is legal and justified ? if not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?” 4. Upon receipt of notification, notices were issued. Both the parties appeared and contested their respective cases by filing written statement. if not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?” 4. Upon receipt of notification, notices were issued. Both the parties appeared and contested their respective cases by filing written statement. Learned C.G.I.T.,Dhanbad after hearing the parties and perusing the evidences and documents brought on record, vide its Award dated 13.10.2010 answered the reference in favour of the Management, holding therein that: “Under the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this school leaving certificate cannot be relied in any way because he left the school in the year 1960 when he was issued 5th Class Certificate. But no certificate has been filed from where he studied up-to 3rd Class. Moreover, no register of the school has been examined to presume correctness of the school leaving certificate. Accordingly, I render the following award- The demand of Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress from the Management of M/s B.C.C.Ltd. for correction of the date of birth of Ram Prasad, Dumper Operator as 2.5.1949 in place of 1.7.1943 is not legal and justified. Hence the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.” 5. Aggrieved by Award dated 13.10.2010, whereby learned C.G.I.T., Dhanbad has rejected his claim, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award is illegal, arbitrary and fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel submits that there has been flagrant violation of principle of natural justice since the respondent has not considered the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate. Further, learned C.G.I.T., Dhanbad without considering the documents produced by the petitioner has rejected his claim and as such, the Award passed by learned C.G.I.T., Dhanbad is fit to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Management argues that the concerned workman was an employee of South Tisra Colliery of M/s B.C.C.L. He came on transfer from Bararee Colliery in the year 1977 and as per his last pay certificate issued from the Bararee Colliery, his date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1943. Accordingly, the Management of South Tisra Colliery entered his name in Form ‘B’ Register of South Tisra Colliery in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 1.7.1943 and in token of acceptance the workman concerned had put his signature in Form ‘B’ Register. Accordingly, the Management of South Tisra Colliery entered his name in Form ‘B’ Register of South Tisra Colliery in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 1.7.1943 and in token of acceptance the workman concerned had put his signature in Form ‘B’ Register. Before Bararee Colliery he was posted at Bhowra O.C.P., another area of B.C.C.L. where also in Form B register his date of birth is mentioned as 01.07.1943 and in token of acceptance, there also the concerned workman had put his signature. There is no overwriting and ambiguity in the date of birth recorded at Bhowra O.C.P. from where he has been transferred to Bararee Colliery. Form ‘B’ Register maintained under the Mines Act is statutory Register and the entries made therein is final for all purposes. The concerned workman has not produced any statutory certificate in respect of his date of birth so the demand of sponsoring Union is neither legal nor justified. There is no infirmity in the Award as the learned C.G.I.T.,Dhanbad has considered every aspect of the matter and thereafter came to the conclusion that no case is made out for interference and further, the claim of the petitioner is a stale claim. In catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that no correction in date of birth can be entertained at the fag end of service career. 8. To buttress his arguments, learned Counsel for the respondent-Management places heavy reliance on the following judgments: (i). Manik Chand Ghosh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. [ 2003 (1) JCR 51 (Jhr.)] & (ii). Civil Paswan Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., [ 2005 (2) JCR 245 (Jhr.) [: 2005 (4) JLJR 344 ] 9. Be that as it may, having heard the parties and upon perusal of the records, it appears that Award is fully justified and no interference is warranted in the instant writ application for the following facts and reasons: (i). The petitioner has not produced any authentic document to prove his date of birth as 2.5.1949. The petitioner produced only School leaving certificate of Class-V. However, only the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate is a valid proof of date of birth. But the petitioner has not submitted matriculation certificate in proof of his date of birth. (ii). The petitioner has not produced any authentic document to prove his date of birth as 2.5.1949. The petitioner produced only School leaving certificate of Class-V. However, only the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate is a valid proof of date of birth. But the petitioner has not submitted matriculation certificate in proof of his date of birth. (ii). During cross-examination the petitioner himself had submitted that he was transferred from Bararee Colliery to South Tisra Colliery and he further admitted that in Form ‘B’ Register he had put his signature. (iii). Form ‘B’ is a statutory Register maintained under the Mines Act and the date of birth recorded therein is final for all purpose. (iv). During his cross examination, the petitioner himself had admitted that there is a cutting in the service excerpt and there is no signature for making the cutting authentic. It clearly proves that the petitioner himself had manipulated the service excerpt. (v). Even the reference was a stale one, as it was made after 07 years of his appointment; the petitioner raised a dispute which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 10. In case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh [ (1993) 2 SCC 162 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, “No Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights”. 11. Further, petitioner was fully aware of the date of birth entered in the service record. Petitioner accepted the said date of birth all along her service career. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions has held that request for change of date of birth in service records at the fag end of service career is not sustainable. 13. In case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan, reported (1994) 6 SCC 302 , the Hon’ble Apex Court was clearly of the opinion that the Government servant should not be permitted to correct the date of birth at the fag end of his service career. The Court in very strong terms, observed as under:- “…..The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register.” 14. The Court in very strong terms, observed as under:- “…..The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register.” 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. Vs. R. Kirubakaran, reported in 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 155, has held as under: “7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service]. 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 promotion forever. …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. 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. …the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book.” 15. This Hon’ble Court dealing with the similar issue in case of Manik Chand Ghosh Vs. …the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book.” 15. This Hon’ble Court dealing with the similar issue in case of Manik Chand Ghosh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2004 (1) JCR 51 (Jhr.), has held that, date of birth once recorded and entered in the service record, counter-signed by the government servant, he should not be permitted to challenge at the fag end of his services. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors., reported in (2010) 14 SCC 423 has held that: “16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P.Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [ (2005) 11 SCC 465 : 2006 SCC (L & S) 96]. In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievances as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career. 17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [ (2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC ( L & S) 106] relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades.” 17. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterating the same view, in case of State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 has held as under:- “8. It needs to be emphasized that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautions and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he 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. No court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights. 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book.” 18. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, reported in (2020) 2 Supreme Today 189, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, “request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable.” 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455 , dealing with the issue relating to stale claim, has held that, reference of the said dispute at a belated stage is bad in eyes of law both on the grounds of delay as well as on non-existence of an Industrial dispute. 20. This Court also in case of “Ajit Singh vrs. M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur through its Manager, H.R./I.R. Legal” vide order dated 05.10.2020 passed in W.P.(L) No.1251 of 2010 has reiterated the same view. 21. Time and again it has been held that if government servants sleep over their right and are not vigilant, the Court cannot come to their rescue/aid and grant relief only because they were ignorant of the Rules. 22. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction of date of birth at the fag end would be at the cost of large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the Court. 23. This Court is in full agreement with the Award passed by the learned C.G.I.T., Dhanbad and the same requires no interference. 24. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.