JUDGMENT : 1. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 05.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2064 of 2010 whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has refused to pass any positive direction upon the respondents-authorities to correct the date of birth of the writ petitioner as 01.07.1959 in place of 01.07.1950. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as hereunder: The writ petitioner was appointed under the respondents on 19.06.1980 as Miner Loader at East Katras Colliery. It is claim of the writ petitioner that his date of birth as mentioned in old Form-B register is 01.07.1959 and he had started discharging his duty. The further claim of the writ petitioner is that even in the Coal Mines Provident Fund, i.e. Form-A, the date of birth of the writ petitioner was clearly mentioned as 01.07.1959. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that when the new Form-B Register was made by the concerned respondent-authorities, the signature of the writ petitioner was taken in blank form and later on the contents of the form have been filled up in which the date of birth of the writ petitioner was wrongly been mentioned as 01.07.1950. The writ petitioner came to know about the said fact and thereafter, he made an objection on 29.08.1987 for making correction in the date of birth but no action was taken by the respondents authorities. Similar requests have been made repeatedly before the respondent-authorities but to no effect and a retirement notice was issued to him on 02.01.2010 about his retirement with effect from 01.07.2010. At that juncture, the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by filing a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2064 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the issue of date of birth cannot be allowed to be agitated at the fag end of service as also by considering the fact that the date of birth mentioned in Form-B register has never been objected by the writ petitioner at earlier stage which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the documents, i.e. old Form-B Register as also the CMPF documents wherein the date of birth of the writ petitioner was recorded as 01.07.1959. It has further been contended that the respondent-authorities while preparing the new Form-B Register has mentioned the date of birth of the writ petitioner by replacing it from 01.07.1959 to 01.07.1950 without any information to the writ petitioner and only when the notice of retirement dated 02.01.2010 communicating the writ petitioner that he will retire with effect from 01.07.2010 was issued, he came to know about the same. However, immediately after coming to know about the same, series of representations were filed but no action has been taken and as such, it cannot be said that the objection about change in the date of birth has been raised by the petitioner at the fag end of service. 4. Per contra Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the BCCL, has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as it is admitted fact as would be evident from the material available on record that the date of birth which was mentioned in the new Form-B Register was as 01.07.1950 and the writ petitioner is claiming the date of birth as 01.07.1959 but no such objection has ever been made in due time rather it is only at the fag end of his retirement the writ petitioner has raised objection by filing representation and as such, it is incorrect to say that the issue raised about correction in the date of birth is not at the fag end of the service rather it is in the fag end of service and it is settled position of law that the issue of correction in the date of birth cannot be allowed to be raised at the fag end of service. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 6. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed on 19.06.1980. His date of birth was recorded in the employer’s record as 01.07.1950. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 6. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed on 19.06.1980. His date of birth was recorded in the employer’s record as 01.07.1950. The retirement notice was given to the writ petitioner on 02.01.2010 and only after issuance of such notice dated 02.01.2010 a writ petition has been filed in the month of May, 2010. Even accepting the version of the writ petitioner that the representations have been filed but when according to the writ petitioner no action was taken on such representations he ought to have approached the court of law at earlier date. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after issuance of notice of retirement dated 02.01.2010 and as such, the plea of the respondents cannot be disputed about raising of the dispute of date of birth by the writ petitioner at the fag end of service. 7. Learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 wherein at paragraph nos. 9, 10 & 11 it has been held that the issue of correction of date of birth cannot be allowed to be agitated at the fag end of the service. Paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the said judgment are quoted as hereunder: “9. This Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder: 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. 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. In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance 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 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. 19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the Court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Department vs. R. Kirubakaran reads as under: (SCC pp. 158-159, Para 7). “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 promotions 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. 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.’ ” 10. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas it is held as hereunder: “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 (See: Union of India vs. Harnam Singh). 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.” 11. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. vs. Laxman dated 25-4-2019 wherein the belated claim was not entertained. Further reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Ram Samugh Yadav dated 27-5-2019 wherein this Court has held as hereunder: “6. Nothing is on record that in the year 1987 when the opportunity was given to Respondent 1, to raise any issue/dispute regarding the service record more particularly his date of birth in the service record, no such issue/dispute was raised. Only one year prior to his superannuation, Respondent 1 raised the dispute which can be said to be belated dispute and therefore, the learned Single Judge as well as the employer was justified in refusing to accept such an issue. 7. The Division Bench of the High Court has, therefore, committed a grave error in directing the appellant to correct the date of birth of Respondent 1 in the service record after number of years and that too when the issue was raised only one year prior to his superannuation and as observed hereinabove no dispute was raised earlier.” 8. 7. The Division Bench of the High Court has, therefore, committed a grave error in directing the appellant to correct the date of birth of Respondent 1 in the service record after number of years and that too when the issue was raised only one year prior to his superannuation and as observed hereinabove no dispute was raised earlier.” 8. The learned Single Judge has also considered the judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 wherein at paragraph-8, as quoted above, it is categorically stated 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, 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. 9. The impugned decision of the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the factual aspect of the given case and considering the fact that the issue of correction in the date of birth has been raised at the fag end of service i.e. after serving of notice of retirement and also considering the aforesaid judgments upon which reliance have been placed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, in our view, cannot be said to suffer from any error. 10. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby, dismissed.