JUDGMENT : Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:- 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was initially engaged on daily wage basis as a Beldar in the year 1983 at Ganvi Construction Division, HPSEB Ltd. Jeori, in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. Later on, her services were regularized. In the year 1998, she was sent on deputation to the then Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (now known as Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited) Jhakri. She was absorbed in SJVNL in the year 2012. According to the petitioner, when she entered the service of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, her date of birth was wrongly entered by the Board as 06.11.1957. This fact was not in her knowledge. In the year 2016, respondent No.2 has informed her that she would be retired in November, 2017. When she made inquiry, she came to know that her date of birth as per the service record was 06.11.1957, which was incorrect. She approached respondent No.4 to know her actual date of birth. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued birth certificate in her favour as well as certificate dated 19.03.2016, in terms whereof, as per the Panchayat record, the date of birth of the petitioner was 06.11.1965. Following this, she made a representation to respondent No.3 for correction of her date of birth. However, the respondent has not affected correction in her date of birth despite assurance given by the respondent in this regard. Accordingly, the petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondents to carry out the correction in her service record qua her date of birth from 06.11.1957 to 06.11.1965. Petitioner has also prayed that respondents be directed to allow her to continue to serve till she attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2025. 3. To substantiate her contention, the petitioner has placed on record Annexure A-1, which is her representation made to SJVNL praying for correction of her date of birth dated 30.04.2016 alongwith which she has appended birth certificate which was issued in her favour by the concerned Gram Panchayat dated 19.03.2016, as per which, her date of birth is 06.11.1965. 4. 3. To substantiate her contention, the petitioner has placed on record Annexure A-1, which is her representation made to SJVNL praying for correction of her date of birth dated 30.04.2016 alongwith which she has appended birth certificate which was issued in her favour by the concerned Gram Panchayat dated 19.03.2016, as per which, her date of birth is 06.11.1965. 4. The petition has been resisted by respondent No.1-Board, inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner had joined the service of respondent No.1 on 26.10.1989 and at the relevant time, she submitted her birth certificate duly issued by Secretary Gram Panchayat, Yangpa (Bhaba) Development Block Nichar, District Kinnaur, H.P., dated 24.10.1989, Annexure RA-3, in terms whereof, the date of birth of the petitioner was 06.11.1957. On the basis of this birth certificate, furnished by the applicant, the date of birth was entered in the service record as 06.11.1957, which was duly authenticated by the petitioner by appending her signatures against the relevant column, which was evident from Annexure RA-4. Respondent No.1 has also placed reliance upon the Medical Fitness Certificate issued by Senior Medical Officer, Satluj Jal Vidyut Pariyojna, Bhabanagar dated 06.11.1989, Annexure RA-5, in which, the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 32 years. As per the said respondent, the petitioner had tendered her technical resignation from the service of respondent No.1 and was absorbed permanently in the establishment of respondent No.3 w.e.f. 29.11.2012 and a copy of order dated 24.04.2013, Annexure RA-6, in terms whereof, the technical resignation of 29 incumbents including the petitioner, whose name was at serial No.25 was accepted, the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 06.11.1957. On these grounds, the said respondent has denied that the age of the petitioner was incorrectly recorded in the service record by respondent No.1. 5. The claim of the petitioner has been resisted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also on the ground that the petitioner was trying to mislead the Court as she was fully aware that her date of birth was 06.11.1957, which was evident from the fact that in the documents which were filled in by her while serving the said respondent, e.g. Annexure R2/3 the date of birth of the petitioner was 06.11.1957. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has drawn the attention of the Court to the Annexures appended with the reply and has submitted that in all the documents, where date of birth was to be mentioned, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 06.11.1957 and these documents pertained to the year 31.08.2012, itself, which clearly proved that the petitioner was fully aware of the fact that her date of birth as was recorded in the service record was 06.11.1957. Learned counsel has further submitted that the subsequent documents which have been obtained by the petitioner just to gain further continuation in employment and as the entries which were made in the service record by respondent No. 1 or respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were on the basis of the information which was initially provided by the petitioner to respondent No.1 with regard to date of birth, therefore, the petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as the documents on record. 7. The petitioner is claiming that her date of birth is 06.11.1965 and not 06.11.1957. She is seeking a direction that respondent be directed to carry out the necessary correction in her date of birth in the service record. Her contention is that she was not aware of her date of birth and it was only in the year 2016 that she came to know about her date of birth when respondent No.2 was informed that her services will be superannuated in the year 2017. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the contention so raised by the petitioner is totally incorrect and false. She has not approached the Court with clean hands and in fact her contention that till the year 2016, she was not knowing her date of birth or that she was not knowing as to what was her date of birth entered in the service record, cannot be believed. This is apparent from the fact that alongwith the reply filed by respondent No.1, that is the original employer of the petitioner, it has appended as Annexure RA-3, which is a certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Yangpa (Bhaba) Development Block Nichar, District Kinnour, H.P., dated 24.10.1989, in terms whereof, it was mentioned that the date of birth of the petitioner was 06.11.1957. Now, it is not the case of the petitioner that Annexure RA-3 is a procured document by respondent No.1. She has not denied by way of rejoinder etc., that the averments as were made in the reply or the documents appended therewith are incorrect or false. Thus, it is evident and apparent from the above that the date of birth as was entered in the service record by respondent No.1 initially was on the basis of the holding out made by the petitioner herself on the strength of Annexure RA-3. Not only this, the documents which have been appended alongwith the reply by respondent No.1 on one hand and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand clearly demonstrates that since her initially engagement with respondent No.1 and after her absorption by respondent No.3, on several occasions in the documents which have furnished/signed by the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 06.11.1957. This clearly demolishes the contention of the petitioner that she was not aware of the date of birth as it stood entered in her service record before the year 2016. On the contrary as it establishes the fact that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, this Court holds that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the plea that she was not aware of the entries in her service record with regard to her date of birth before the year 2016, because there are plenty number of documents on record which demonstrate that petitioner herself had signed the documents in which her date of birth was mentioned as 06.11.1957. These documents/communications are much prior to the year 2016. 8. From the above, the only conclusion which can be drawn by the Court is that the petitioner obtained subsequent certificate, on the strength of which the petition has been filed, just to gain some more years in service and she concealed material and vital facts of the case at the time when the Writ Petition was filed. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. The right of the respondents of superannuating the petitioner on her attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of her date of birth certificate being 06.11.1957 is upheld. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. The right of the respondents of superannuating the petitioner on her attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of her date of birth certificate being 06.11.1957 is upheld. In the event any service has been rendered by the petitioner beyond the said age/date on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court, then the respondents shall be entitled to recover wages if any paid. Petitioner shall have no right for any benefit on account of her having served respondent No.3 on the basis of interim orders passed by the Court. Miscellaneous application, if any, stand dismissed.