ORDER : 1. The Court proceedings have been conducted through Video Conference. 2. Heard Ms. S.D. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, Ld. Standing Counsel for the N.F. Railways. 3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.07.2020 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati in Original Application No. 040/00145/2020 by which the claim of the applicant petitioner for change of his date of birth on the eve of his retirement was rejected. 4. The petitioner was serving as a Grade IV employee under the establishment of NF Railways, Maligaon. According to him at the time of appointment he submitted all his testimonials including HSLC admit card and certificate as required. His case is that as per the aforesaid admit card, he was 19 years two months 12 days as on 01.03.1980. As such, his date of birth would be 19.01.1961. According to the petitioner, about five months before his retirement, to his surprise, he found in a notice on the notice board wherein the date of his retirement was shown as 31.07.2020, though it should be 31.12.2020 as per the entry in the HSLC certificate. Thus being aggrieved, he submitted a representation to the authorities for correction of his date of birth on the basis of the HSLC certificate and admit card which was rejected by the authorities on 20.07.2020. Thereafter, having no other alternative, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. 5. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal on examining the HSLC admit card relied upon by the petitioner and the service book of the petitioner produced by the respondent authorities and referring to the Railway Board Master Circular No. 12 dated 12.06.2019 rejected the application of the petitioner relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Harnam Singh, 1993 AIR 1367 by holding that the applicant after entering service in the Railways in 1986 remained silent and did not seek alteration of his date of birth but just a few months prior to his date of superannuation. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal did not find favour with the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he was a layman and was not aware that his date of birth had been wrongly recorded in the service book, as the Learned Tribunal noted that he was a matriculate and had rendered service for 33 years and had the occasion to see his date of birth recorded in the Memorandum of de-casualisation of CL/CPC dated 14.06.1991 where his date of birth was recorded as 19.07.1960. 6. We are in agreement with the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal in its conclusion arrived at. 7. Law is now well settled that request for change of date of birth of an employee even permitted under the rules, ought not be entertained after a long passage of time of entering service and that too on the eve of retirement. Admittedly, certain rules governing alteration of date of birth in the Railways as contained in Railway Board Master Circular No. 12 dated 12.06.2019 as relied upon by the respondents was also referred to by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal while deciding the claim of the applicant. The relevant portion of the aforesaid circular as reproduced in the order of the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal reads as follows: “(II) Procedure in regard to alteration of date of birth: 1. The date of birth as recorded in accordance with the rules shall be held to be binding and no alteration of such date shall ordinarily be permitted subsequently. It shall, however, be open to the President in the case of Group “A” and “B” railway servants and a General Manager in the case of Group “C” and “D” railway servants to cause the date of birth to be altered. (i) Where in his opinion, it has been falsely stated by the railway servant to obtain an advantage, otherwise inadmissible, provided that such alteration shall not result in the railway servant being retained in service longer than if the alteration had not been made. (ii) Where, in the case of illiterate staff, the General Manager is satisfied that a clerical error has occurred. (ii) Where, in the case of illiterate staff, the General Manager is satisfied that a clerical error has occurred. (iii) Where a satisfactory explanation (which should not be entertained other after completion of the probation period of three years service, which is earlier) of the circumstances in which the wrong date came to be entered is furnished by the railway servant concerned, together with the statement of any previous attempts made to have the record amended, (Rule 225-RI).” 8. The case of the petitioner does not come under any of the above eventualities. The petitioner has not referred to any other rule covering his case. As the petitioner was a grade IV employee and had qualified in the HSLC examination, he cannot be treated to be an illiterate employee. He claims that he became aware of the wrong date of birth entered in the service book when he was notified about his date of retirement. However, he apparently skipped notice of the date of birth which according to him was not correct when the de-casualisation order was issued on 14.06.1991. We find it difficult to accept that he became aware of the discrepancy about the date of birth only when his retirement was notified. He raised his claim for correction of his alleged wrong date of birth very belatedly without offering any explanation for the belated endeavour in approaching the authorities seeking correction of his date of birth in the service book. His silence throughout his long service is not explained at all. Thus, the striking feature is that he approached the authorities very belatedly at the fag end of his career, about five months before his retirement, for alteration of his date of birth in the service book. 9. The Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal while rejecting the plea of the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harnam Singh’s case (supra) in which it has been clearly held that inordinate and unexplained delay or laches on the part of the employee would entail refusal of any such claim. The aforesaid principle was reiterated in State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 574 in the following words: “8. The aforesaid principle was reiterated in State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 574 in the following words: “8. It needs to be emphasised 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, cautious 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. Union of India vs. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92. In the factual background adverted to, the aforesaid decisions seal the fate of the petition.” 10. Accordingly, we also hold that no case has been made out for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner on the eve of his retirement. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.