JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 10/11.11.2020 and 24/25.11.2020 whereby and whereunder his claim for correction in date of birth as per the 10th certificate i.e. Madhyama examination has been rejected. 2. As per factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on 17-18.05.1996 under Para 9:4:2 of NCWA-IV as ‘Fitter Helper (T)’ and was posted at the office of General Manager (MRD) at Potkee Balihar Area, Dhanbad for field training. 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that at the time of Medical Examination he had furnished his 10th mark-sheet/certificate issued by the Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Bihar wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 10.02.1965 but inadvertently date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in Form-B as 09.02.1962. The petitioner was under impression that his date of birth in his service excerpts must have been recorded as 10.02.1965 as per his matriculation certificate. But it was only in the year 2016 he came to know that his date of birth has wrongly been entered as 09.02.1962 in place of 10.02.1965. Thereafter on the basis of Matriculation Certificate, the petitioner made several representation to the concerned authorities but no heed was paid to his representation and finally the same was rejected vide order dated 10.11.2020 and 24.11.2020. Hence, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court challenging the aforesaid orders. 4. Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner has cleared Matriculation Examination much prior to his appointment i.e. in the year 1981. Matriculation certificate which carries the date of birth of the petitioner was duly submitted at the time of appointment i.e. in the year 1996. The petitioner was having impression that the date of birth entered in the service excerpt is as per the Matriculation certificate and as such he had not raised any objection. It was only after 20 years of service, he came to know that an imaginary date of birth has been entered in the service excerpt as 09.02.1962. 5. Learned Counsel further argued that Matriculation certificate was issued by the Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Bihar and the same was found to be genuine and as such direction be given to the respondents to correct the date of birth in the service records as per Matriculation certificate. 6. 5. Learned Counsel further argued that Matriculation certificate was issued by the Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Bihar and the same was found to be genuine and as such direction be given to the respondents to correct the date of birth in the service records as per Matriculation certificate. 6. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 7. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel representing the B.C.C.L. vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and argues that issues regarding date of birth is no more res integra. In plethora of judgments, this Court has held that date of birth even wrongly mentioned in the service excerpt cannot be a subject of correction at the fag end of service career and as the petitioner has approached the authorities after 20 years of service there is no scope for correction of the same as per matriculation certificate. Learned Counsel further argues that as per N.C.W.A. dispute regarding date of birth has to be raised within a reasonable period preferably within a period of 10 years. In the instant case the same has been raised after 20 years of service. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. The petitioner claims to have submitted the certificate at the time of appointment but upon perusal of records it appears that date of birth as mentioned in Form “B” Register and I.D. card Register is 09.02.1962 which was very much known to the petitioner. Form B Register is a statutory document of the B.C.C.L. which has force of law and cannot be disputed. In catena of decision it has been held by this Court that it is impermissible for the employer as well as the employee to raise the dispute regarding date of birth at the fag end of service. Form B Register is a statutory document of the B.C.C.L. which has force of law and cannot be disputed. In catena of decision it has been held by this Court that it is impermissible for the employer as well as the employee to raise the dispute regarding date of birth at the fag end of service. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Premlal Shrivas, 2011 (9) SCC 664 has categorically held that: “Para 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, 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.” 9. The same view was reiterated by this Court in case of Ajit Singh vs. M/s Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Jamshedpur through its Manager, HR/IR Legal passed in W.P. (L) No. 1251 of 2010 disposed of on 05.10.2020. 10. Resultantly, this Court finds that no case is made out for interference and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.