ORDER : 1. Heard Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents’ corporation. 2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner from service on 28.02.2013 vide proceedings/notification No. 1/693(10)/2012-KRZ, dated 05.09.2012 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Clause 19(1) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations,1964 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner till February, 2013 in service while treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.02.1959. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: (a) The petitioner passed SSC examination from the Government High School, Karimnagar in the year 1974 and was issued with marks-pass certificate memo wherein his date of birth is shown as 04.02.1959. (b) The petitioner applied for the post of Conductor and selected for the same and that he joined into service in the year 1984 by submitting SSC original certificate and other relevant documents as required by the authorities. (c) The petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant and posted at Deputy Chief Accounts Officer under the control of Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Karimnagar. (d) In the month of April, 2012, he was given pay slip, wherein date of birth was shown as 04.02.1955 instead of 04.02.1959. At no point of time, the petitioner has been informed that his date of birth was entered in the service record as 04.02.1955. Till March, 2012 there was no practice of entering the date of birth in the pay slips. Immediately after receiving the pay slip for the month of April, 2012, the petitioner approached the authorities concerned requesting to change his date of birth in the pay slip, where it was mistakenly printed or mentioned as 04.02.1955. But the authorities have not changed the same. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 18.06.2012 requesting to rectify the date of birth. Instead of rectifying the date of birth the respondent corporation issued proceedings dated 10.07.2012 stating that on verification of petitioner’s personal records, the date of birth is recorded in service register and appointment orders as 04.02.1955 and that there are no educational certificates either Xerox or originals available with the corporation. Instead of rectifying the date of birth the respondent corporation issued proceedings dated 10.07.2012 stating that on verification of petitioner’s personal records, the date of birth is recorded in service register and appointment orders as 04.02.1955 and that there are no educational certificates either Xerox or originals available with the corporation. (e) The petitioner made representation to the respondent corporation that he has submitted SSC certificate dated 10.09.1974 at the time of joining and at no point of time he has been asked for production of the same and all the original certificates including SSC certificate is with the respondent corporation. (f) The petitioner was advised by the respondent corporation to submit attested Xerox copies of the certificates. Since gazetted officer will not attest the Xerox copy without original documents, he produced Xerox copy of SSC certificate. Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, again Respondent Corporation issued proceedings dated 24.08.2012 to submit SSC marks memo/educational certificates, wherein date of birth is recorded, within three days, in person, in original or Xerox duly attested by the Unit Officer. Since the petitioner has submitted original certificates at the time of joining service and the available Xerox copies submitted earlier, he is not having any certificates. (g) However, the respondent corporation issued proceedings dated 05.09.2012 that the petitioner is attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on 03.02.2013 A.N. as his date of birth as per the records is 04.02.1955 and the said proceedings are wholly illegal and arbitrary. (h) Section 45(1) of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Government has framed regulation called A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Service (Regulations), 1964 vide G.O.Ms. No. 695, dated 24.04.1964. Section 19(1) of the said Regulations is extracted hereunder: “19. Date of Birth: (1) Every person on entering the service of the Corporation shall declare his date of birth which shall not differ from any declaration, express or implied, made by him for any public purpose before entering such service. For this purpose, the date of birth as recorded in a school or college certificate shall be adopted without any modification.” (i) The petitioner stated that the proceedings dated 10.07.2012 are issued on the basis of documents available in personal records, viz. For this purpose, the date of birth as recorded in a school or college certificate shall be adopted without any modification.” (i) The petitioner stated that the proceedings dated 10.07.2012 are issued on the basis of documents available in personal records, viz. form of medical examination, medical certificate, guaranteed Provident Fund Nomination Form, personal date sheet, 1st page of service record, the date of birth is recorded as 04.02.1955 and that the date of birth entered by the authorities in the said documents is behind the back of the petitioner and that when an employee is literate and passed SSC, Medical Examination is done only for the purpose of fitness to the job and hence, the date of birth recorded by the Medical Officer cannot be taken into consideration when the candidate joining in the Corporation basing on SSC certificate, which is available with the corporation. (j) It is submitted by the petitioner that he approached the Board of Secondary Education for duplicate, where he has been informed that duplicate certificate will be given subject to production of non-traceable certificate from the police and that as the respondents are custodian of records, they are responsible for the same. (k) It is also submitted that as per Recruitment Regulations, no person shall be appointed without looking into the original certificate as required and that in this case also after submitting original SSC certificate only, appointment order was issued. (l) As such the proceedings dated 05.09.2012 issued by the respondent corporation is illegal and arbitrary and hence, this writ petition is filed. 4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is as follows: (a) The petitioner was appointed as Conductor w.e.f. 29.02.1984 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Junior Assistant (F) and working w.e.f. 16.12.2009 and that as per personal records, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 04.02.1955 in the following documents: “(a) Form of Medical Certificate attested by the petitioner. (b) Medical Certificate, dated 06.02.1984, wherein the age of the petitioner is recorded by Civil Assistant Surgeon, APSRTC Dispensary, Karimnagar as 29 years and it was attested by the petitioner. (c) GPF Form of declaration submitted by the petitioner, dated 28.02.1984. (d) Appointment Order No. E2/143/(1)/84-KRMR, dated 03.03.1984 of Depot Manager, Karimnagar. (e) Personal Data sheet - January, 1984 dated Nil attested by the petitioner. (c) GPF Form of declaration submitted by the petitioner, dated 28.02.1984. (d) Appointment Order No. E2/143/(1)/84-KRMR, dated 03.03.1984 of Depot Manager, Karimnagar. (e) Personal Data sheet - January, 1984 dated Nil attested by the petitioner. (f) Nomination submitted by the petitioner for EPF dated 09.01.2001. (g) Nomination submitted by the petitioner for SBTF dated 16.01.2001. (h) Declaration of Family Members for medical attendance submitted by the petitioner dated 21.08.2002.” (b) The service record of the petitioner also discloses the date of birth as 04.02.1955 as per the information furnished by him and duly signed by him and that the date of retirement is also recorded as 28.02.2013. (c) The petitioner is very irregular to his duties and also performance, for which his annual increments were deferred 13 times, censured three times, and removed from service two times (later on reinstated). The total service of the petitioner is 29 years two months and two days, out of which, the total number of days, he was not available for the duty is 10 years 9 months two days. (d) When circular instructions issued on 31.03.2011 to all the Unit Officers/Controlling Officers to take immediate action to verify the P. Case and S.R. of each of the employees to ensure that correct date of birth is recorded in service record of the respective employees in accordance with Regulation No. 19, the petitioner’s personal records were also verified and found that there is no educational certificates/SSC, but based on the appointment order, declarations, nominations, Medical certificate available, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 04.02.1955 and date of appointment is 29.02.1984. (e) The contention of the petitioner is not correct that the system of entering the date of birth in the pay slip is implemented in the month of April, 2012. The corporation has developed software for provision for date of birth and date of appointment in the salary pay slips, for the information of the employees, implemented in the month of January, 2012 and that the petitioner has not approached any authorities requesting to change the date of birth in the pay slip and that the petitioner has also not submitted any representation dated 18.06.2012 for the same. (f) As the non availability of educational certificates in original or Xerox, the respondents addressed letter dated 10.07.2012 to the petitioner to submit set of attested Xerox copies of certificates of educational qualifications i.e. transfer certificate/secondary school certificate/HSC within seven days for ensuring his date of birth and to get certification. Later the petitioner issued letter dated 24.07.2012 stating that he has submitted SSC certificate dated 10.09.1974 at the time of joining and that the Xerox copy of SSC marks memo produced is without gazetted officer signature as he has no original and requested to change his date of birth as 04.02.1959 instead of 04.02.1955. (g) When the petitioner has not submitted educational certificates, the respondent corporation recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.02.1955 as per available personal record and issued retirement notification on 05.09.2012, it is also submitted that there are catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court that at the fag end of the service no alteration of date of birth can be made. (h) On verification of the personal records of the petitioner, it is found that P. Case folios first recorded from Pages 1 to 71 and the folios were found altered as detailed hereunder: First recorded Subsequently recorded Missing folios 1 to 71 1 to 63 From 7 to 12, 16 and 17 In regard to missing of folios there is a mention at folio No. 56/49 at bottom place. All this happened in the year 1997 as the last folio No. 71 filed is having dated 11.07.1997. As per the SR entry, the entries made in SR mentioned folio Nos. from F.35 at Page No. 4, as per first recorded folio, but it was modified as 28 to set the serial numbers of Folios. From the above it can be under stood that the petitioner might have taken back the original/Xerox copies of his educational certificates which may having filed at the missing folios in the personal record. from F.35 at Page No. 4, as per first recorded folio, but it was modified as 28 to set the serial numbers of Folios. From the above it can be under stood that the petitioner might have taken back the original/Xerox copies of his educational certificates which may having filed at the missing folios in the personal record. (i) At the time of entering into service, the petitioner declared his educational qualification as B.Com and hence, the petitioner is not an illiterate person to say that all the documents were entered by the authorities in respective columns behind his back and that at the time of appointment, the petitioner might have submitted certificates and based on the said certificates, his date of birth was recorded in the Form of Medical Examination as 04.02.1955 and the same was attested by the petitioner while directing him to Medical Examination on 06.02.1984 before issuing appointment order as Conductor. (j) There was a procedure contemplated for obtaining duplicate SSC certificate by production of non-traceable certificate from the police. The petitioner never informed about his school study, college study or university study, though he is B.Com graduate. (k) Therefore, the writ petition is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition. 6. The main contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows: (a) The date of birth of the petitioner is wrongly shown as 04.02.1955 in the service records of the petitioner instead of 04.02.1959, which is contrary to petitioner’s original SSC certificate. (b) It is only in the month of April, 2012, when he was given pay slip the petitioner observed the said mistake that the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 04.02.1955 instead of 04.02.1959, though the petitioner joined the respondent corporation in the year 1984 as Conductor. (c) That the petitioner has submitted his SSC certificate 10.09.1974 at the time of joining in the respondent corporation. (d) That the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till February, 1970, but however, due to wrong entry the petitioner had to retire on 28.02.2013 and thereby, the petitioner lost five years of valuable service as an employee and also all the consequential benefits. (d) That the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till February, 1970, but however, due to wrong entry the petitioner had to retire on 28.02.2013 and thereby, the petitioner lost five years of valuable service as an employee and also all the consequential benefits. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 7. The main contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent are as follows: (a) The petitioner did not come with clean hands before the Court. (b) A bare perusal of Para 5 of the petitioner’s representation dated 23.07.2012 and its contents clearly establish that it is only an after thought of the petitioner and a blatant lie with a motive to derive all the benefits having never whispered from the date of his appointment i.e. since 1984 onwards, when he joined the respondent organization as Conductor at Huzurabad Depot and having raised the issue of correction of date of birth only in the year 2012, just one year prior to the date of his retirement i.e. 28th February, 2013.The petitioner, who is a graduate, cannot plead ignorance with regard to the entries in his own service record. (c) In pursuance to the interim orders of this Court dated 05.01.2017 passed in W.P. M.P. No. 26264 of 2016 in W.P. No. 3754 of 2013, the petitioner received all his retiral benefits having retired from service on 28.02.2013, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for by this Court, in view of the admitted fact as borne on record, the petitioner’s request for correction of date of birth being at the fag end of the service. Hence, the writ petition is to be dismissed. 8. PERUSED THE RECORD: (a) The counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, Para 4 reads as under: “It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as conductor w.e.f. 29.02.1984 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Jr. Asst. (F) and working w.e.f. 16.12.2009. As per the personal records the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 04.02.1995 in the following documents: (a) Form of Medical Certificate attested by the petitioner. (b) Medical Certificate, dated 06.02.1984, wherein the age of the petitioner is recorded by Civil Assistant Surgeon, APSRTC Dispensary, Karimnagar as 29 years and it was attested by the petitioner. (c) GPF Form of declaration submitted by the petitioner, dated 28.02.1984. (b) Medical Certificate, dated 06.02.1984, wherein the age of the petitioner is recorded by Civil Assistant Surgeon, APSRTC Dispensary, Karimnagar as 29 years and it was attested by the petitioner. (c) GPF Form of declaration submitted by the petitioner, dated 28.02.1984. (d) Appointment Order No. E2/143/(1)/84-KRMR, dated 03.03.1984 of Depot Manager, Karimnagar. (e) Personal Data sheet – January, 1984 dated Nil attested by the petitioner. (f) Nomination submitted by the petitioner for EPF dated 09.01.2001. (g) Nomination submitted by the petitioner for SBTF dated 16.01.2001. (h) Declaration of Family Members for medical attendance submitted by the petitioner dated 21.08.2002.” Further, the service record of the petitioner also discloses the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.02.1955 as per the information furnished by the petitioner herein and duly signed by him and in the said data also the date of retirement is also recorded as 28.02.2013.” (b) A bare perusal of the contents of letter dated 10.07.2012 addressed by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner herein and also acknowledged by the petitioner on 18.07.2012 stating that in view of non availability of any kind of educational certificates in original or Xerox pertaining to the petitioner in his personal records, the petitioner was requested to submit a set of attested Xerox copies of certificates of his educational qualification, in which the date of birth is recorded i.e. Transfer certificate, Secondary School Certificate, HSC, within seven days for ensuring his date of birth and to get certification of date of birth from the audit wing as per the circular guidelines. It is also furnished in the said letter that the date of birth is recorded in his personal record as 04.02.1955 and he had attested all the documents available in his personal record, very clearly indicating his date of birth as 04.02.1955. (c) A bare perusal of Para 6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3 and its contents clearly indicate that inspite of the best efforts that is several reminders, issuance of letter dated 28.04.2012, requesting the petitioner to submit his SSC memo of marks and the educational certificates in original or Xerox duly attested by the unit officer concerned. Yet, the petitioner failed to submit the same to the respondent corporation. Yet, the petitioner failed to submit the same to the respondent corporation. (d) The petitioner in his affidavit at Para 4 has stated on oath that the petitioner has only Xerox copy of SSC certificate and therefore, he submitted Xerox copy of SSC certificate since gazetted officer will not attest the Xerox copy without original documents. (e) Under Section 45 (1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Government has framed regulation called A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service (Regulations), 1964 and Section 19(1) of the Regulations is extracted hereunder: “19. Date of Birth: (1) Every person on entering the service of the Corporation shall declare his date of birth which shall not differ from any declaration, express or implied, made by him for any public purpose before entering such service. For this purpose, the date of birth as recorded in a school or college certificate shall be adopted without any modification.” (f) The petitioner having failed to submit SSC original certificate nor SSC marks memo inspite of repeated reminders by the respondent corporation, and having failed to utilise the opportunity of personal hearing by the respondent corporation for correction of date of birth as explained in detail in Para 6 and also in Para 11 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, cannot contend that he is entitled for grant of relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. (g) The Apex Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited vs. T.P. Nataraja and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 767 at Para 19 and 22 observed as under: 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, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (1994) 26 ATC 828 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]. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Department vs. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (1994) 26 ATC 828 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 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. 22. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under: (i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable. (ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. (iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. (ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. (iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. (h) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 referred to several Apex Court judgments and allowed an appeal preferred against the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Ranchi in LPA No. 115 of 2018, vide the said order the Division Bench though has modified the judgment and order dated 13th October, 2017 of the learned Single Judge in so far as the extent of relief granted, the contention of the respondent thereunder relating to the change of date of birth in the records was accepted and the said impugned order was set aside. (i) The Apex Court in fact on an earlier occasion 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, (2011) 9 SCC 664 it is held as under: “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 Page 11 of 16 over their rights [See: Union of India vs. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92]. 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.” (j) In State of Tamil Nadu vs. T.V. Venugopalan, 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 Hon’ble 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. The Hon’ble 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. It is common phenomenon that just before superannuation, an application would be made to the Tribunal or Court just to gain time to continue in service and the Tribunal or courts are unfortunately unduly liberal in entertaining and allowing the government employees or public employees to remain in office, which is adding an impetus to resort to the fabrication of the record and place reliance thereon and seek the authority to correct it. When rejected, on grounds of technicalities, question them and remain in office till the period claimed for, gets expired. This case is one such stark instance. Accordingly, in our view, the Tribunal has grossly erred in showing overindulgence in granting the reliefs even trenching beyond its powers of allowing him to remain in office for two years after his date of superannuation even as per his own case and given all conceivable directions beneficial to the employee. It is, therefore, a case of the grossest error of law committed by the Tribunal which cannot be countenanced and cannot be sustained on any ground......” (k) In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal and Others vs. Pitamber Dutt Semwa, 2002 (1) AWC 429 (SC) : 2002 (92) FLR 773 the 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, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades. (l) Further reading of Secretary And Commissioner, Home Department and others, judgment enshrines that the correction 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in very strong terms, observed as under “an application for correction of the date of birth by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in very strong terms, observed as under “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 the 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 and before any such direction is issued, the court 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 time fixed by any rule or order. The onus is on the applicant to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service-book.” (m) In Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and Others vs. R. Kirubakaran, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 155 the Hon’ble Supreme Court again reiterated the legal position that the courts have to be extremely careful when application for alteration of the date of birth is filed on the eve of superannuation or near-about that time. (1) SCC 155 the Hon’ble Supreme Court again reiterated the legal position that the courts have to be extremely careful when application for alteration of the date of birth is filed on the eve of superannuation or near-about that time. The Hon’ble Court observed as under: “.......As such whenever an application for alteration of the date of birth is made on the eve of superannuation or near about that time, the court or the tribunal concerned should be more cautious because of the growing tendency amongst a section of public servants to raise such a dispute without explaining as to why this question was not raised earlier.....” (n) A bare perusal of the above referred observations of the Apex Court and the consistent legal position discussed above, clearly indicates that unless a clear case on the basis of materials, which can be held to be conclusive in nature is made out and unless the Court is satisfied that real in-justice occurred to the person concerned, a claim for correction of date of birth cannot be entertained. The petitioner herein though a graduate and being literate, admittedly as borne on record, made a request for correction of date of birth for the first time, after putting in more than 28 years of service i.e. in the year 2012 even as per petitioner’s own averment in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition having been appointed as conductor on 29.02.1984 in the respondent organization, has made a representation for correction of date of birth to the respondent first time only in the year 2012, at the fag end of his service and has approached the Court only after an after-thought in the year 2013 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief as prayed for. The petitioner received all his retirement benefits and retired from service on 28.02.2013. The petitioner joined service in the year 1984 and being a graduate pleaded ignorance till the year 2012 and woke up suddenly in the year 2012 after putting in more than 28 years of service, that too at the fag end of his service and the same can only be said to be a belated dispute. 9. The writ petition is dismissed since it is clear that there is no substance in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. 9. The writ petition is dismissed since it is clear that there is no substance in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.