JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the agreement in Form-H dated 14.2.2013, whereby the petitioner has been made to retire on 31.05.2014 without taking into account his date of birth as mentioned in matriculation certificate as 31.12.1956. The petitioner has also prayed for full salary for the period from 31.12.2012 to 14.02.2013 and the period from 31.05.2014 till date, with consequential benefits. 3. Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed under the respondent-Company on 23.5.1972 and his date of birth was mentioned as 1.1.1953 in Form-B register. It is specific case of the petitioner that he had passed matric examination prior to entering into service, but the same was not considered and erroneously an imaginary date has been mentioned in Form-B Register as 1.1.1953. Several representations were made for correction of date of birth, but the same were not considered and it was only at the fag end of service, consideration was shown by correcting the date of birth, as mentioned in matriculation certificate i.e. 1.1.1956 and the petitioner was given salary for one and half years. The petitioner is aggrieved by the settlement entered into by the Management and the petitioner, which deprived the petitioner for getting the salary from 31.12.2012 to 14.02.2013 and from 31.5.2014 till date, which led to filing of this writ petition. 4. Mr. Sameer Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the Implementation Instruction No. 76, the matriculation certificate has to be taken into consideration by the Management for the purpose of recording the date of birth. Learned counsel further submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that he had passed the matriculation after entering into the service, rather, he passed the matriculation exam before entering into service and the certificate issued by the competent authority shows the date of birth as 1.1.1956, which ought to have been considered by the respondents while entering the same in Form-B register. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of wrong entry made by the respondents. Learned counsel further argues that Implementation Instruction No. 76 is binding on the Management as the same got its statutory force. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of wrong entry made by the respondents. Learned counsel further argues that Implementation Instruction No. 76 is binding on the Management as the same got its statutory force. Learned counsel submits that though admitting such mistake, the respondent authorities have corrected the same and they have paid the salary for one and half years, but the petitioner has been deprived from getting the salary till 31.5.2014, as he was made to retire at early stage in the year 2012 itself. Therefore, learned counsel submits that a direction be given to the respondents to consider his case based on the matriculation certificate, which they have already considered the same for the purpose of salary, as prayed in the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that admittedly Implementation Instruction No. 76 is binding on the management, but no consideration can be shown dehors the rules. He submits that the petitioner failed to submit the matriculation certificate at the time of his initial appointment. Para-9 of the counter affidavit fortifies his argument that the petitioner intentionally did not submit the matriculation certificate because as per the certificate, he was a minor at the time of appointment and if he would have submitted such certificate, he would not be appointed. It was only at the fag end of service i.e. on 11.1.2011, the petitioner when going to superannuate in the year 2012, raised dispute that his date of birth has not been considered by the Management illegally and arbitrary. Relying on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. Vs. Indrasani Devi, decided in L.P.A. No. 41 of 2018, learned counsel submits that any settlement entered into by the parties has got force of law and once the parties have agreed in the settlement, they cannot turn away from the said settlement and challenge the same in the Court of law. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Indrasani Devi, decided in L.P.A. No. 41 of 2018, learned counsel submits that any settlement entered into by the parties has got force of law and once the parties have agreed in the settlement, they cannot turn away from the said settlement and challenge the same in the Court of law. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having the heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire records, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the writ petition for the following reliefs:- (i) The petitioner has raised the dispute regarding date of birth at the fag end of service i.e. in 2011, when he was to retire in the year 2012. (ii) The settlement entered into between the parties are binding and it has got statutory force. It is not open for the petitioner to challenge the same in the Court of law. (iii) The petitioner took shelter of Implementation Instruction No. 76 which is not at all attracted in the case of the petitioner as he failed to submit the matric certificate at the time of initial appointment. Any settlement entered into by the parties has got its statutory force and once the parties have agreed in the settlement, the same cannot be challenged by the parties. (iv) Similar issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 41 of 2018 (Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. Vs. Indrasani Devi), whereby, it has held that it is not permissible to either parties once the settlement takes place to challenge the same, as it has got the statutory force and it is binding on the parties. The relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- “10. ……. ……. ….. ….. Now the question is, whether the writ petitioner/respondent can be allowed to question the office order dated 07.11.2011, once the settlement has been arrived by him with the management on 05.11.2011. The answer of this Court would be negative which is for the two reasons. First, the settlement dated 05.11.2011 since under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which binds the parties, therefore, it is not permissible to the writ petitioner/respondent once to enter into the settlement, take benefit of reinstatement and subsequently question it before the Court of law. First, the settlement dated 05.11.2011 since under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which binds the parties, therefore, it is not permissible to the writ petitioner/respondent once to enter into the settlement, take benefit of reinstatement and subsequently question it before the Court of law. Since the settlement has got the statutory force, hence it has got its binding effect and further, since in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 05.11.2011, the office order has been issued on 07.11.2011, as such, the office order dated 07.11.2011 cannot be read out in isolation leaving apart the memorandum of settlement dated 05.11.2011.” (v) The petitioner failed to submit the matriculation certificate at the time of initial appointment and only at the fag end of service career, he raised this dispute. It appears that the petitioner very knowingly did not submit the certificate, as if he had submitted the certificate, he must not have been appointed because as per date of birth mentioned in the certificate, he was a minor at that time. (vi) The Management has taken a lenient view and has considered the matric certificate and has entered the date of birth as mentioned in the matric certificate and even salary for one and half years have been paid to the petitioner. Though the said consideration was totally erroneous against the provisions of law. The petitioner should be happy for said consideration. (vii) Even the claim of the petitioner was a stale one, as it was at the fag end of service, the petitioner raised a dispute which is not permissible in the eyes of law. (viii) In the case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “No Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights.” (ix) The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions has held that request for change of date of birth in service records at the fag end of service career is not sustainable. In case of State of Tamil Nandu Vs. T.V.Venugopalan, reported (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. In case of State of Tamil Nandu Vs. T.V.Venugopalan, reported (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 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”. (x) The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. Vs. R. Kirubakaran, reported in 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 155, has held as under: “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. 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.” (xi) The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455 , dealing with the issue relating to stale claim, has held that, reference of the said dispute at a belated stage is bad in eyes of law both on the grounds of delay as well as on non-existence of an industrial dispute. (xii) Taking into consideration the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as different High Courts, this Court in the case of Ajit Singh Vs. M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur, decided in W.P.(L) No. 1251 of 2010, held that “if Government servants sleep over their right and are not vigilant, the Court cannot come to their rescue / aid and grant relief only because they were ignorant of the Rules.” 7. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, regulations, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.