JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Deeptiman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut dated 19.3.2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Standing Order was enforced in the petitioner's sugar mill in the year 1988. Part-LL of the Standing Order provides for the retirement of workmen on reaching the age of superannuation. Clause 3 provides for any modification in the date of birth which can be done within a period of one year from the date of enforcement of the Standing Order. Further, Clause 3-C provides that the date, month and year of birth entered and recorded in Provident Fund record shall be taken as final. Part-LL of the Standing Order is extracted hereas under:- ''1. A workman may be retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation, which shall be 60 years. 2. The Provident Fund record of the factory specifying the workman's age should, to being with, be taken as the reliable record of the age of a workman for purposes of retirement. 3. This record of age shall stand modified as may be warranted by the following:- (a) Date of Birth as given in High School Certificate. If the school leaving certificate is below High school then such certificate must be authenticated by the District Inspector of Schools or by the District Education Officer as the case may be. (b) Date of Birth as certified by the a Municipal Corporation, a Municipal Board, a Cantonment Board, a Notified Area or a Town Area Committee. (c) An Insurance Policy taken before November 1, 1960: provided that : (i) where the date, month and the year of birth of a workman are recorded in Provident Fund records shall be taken as final. (ii) where only the month and year of birth are given, the date shall be taken as the 1st of that month: and (iii) where the Provident Fund record of the workman does not specify the date or month of month of birth in that case the 1st November of the year shall be deemed to be the date of retirement. (iv) the foregoing provisions regarding modification of age shall lapse on expiry of 1 year from the date of enforcement of these standing orders.'' 4. He then contended that the employee/respondent No. 2 on 3.4.1997 had filled the nomination and declaration form under the Employees' Provident Fund, wherein the year of birth was mentioned as 1940. Learned counsel further submitted that as the respondent No. 2 was going to attain the age of superannuation on 31.10.2000, the company, in a routine manner, on 24.8.2000 gave a notice informing him for moving the necessary papers for payment of retiral dues. It was after the notice which was issued on 24.8.2000. The employee moved an application after a month on 18.9.2000 stating therein that his year of birth is not 1940, but is 1943. In the application, it was also stated that earlier in the year of 1998, similar application was moved for correction of the service records. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the period prescribed for making modification expired after expiry of one year from the date of enforcement of the Standing Order. He has placed reliance upon the decisions of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of M/s. Babhnan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The Deputy Labour Commissioner Faizabad, passed in Service Single No.2651 of 1993, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Bijnor v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad, 2002(2) ESC 422 (All) and U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Ram Naresh Upadhyay (Allahabad), 2002 (4) AWC 3109 . 6. Opposing the writ petition, Sri Vibhu Rai, counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the Deputy Labour Commissioner had rightly passed the order holding that the date of birth of the respondent No. 2 is 18.6.1943 and earlier the application was moved in the year 1998, which remained unattended. He invited attention of the Court to Annexure CA-1 which is the School Leaving Certificate dated 12.1.1998, according to which, the year of birth is 1943 and not 1940. 7. I have heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 8. It is a case where, at the fag end of the service, an employee has moved an application for correction of date of birth in the service book. 7. I have heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 8. It is a case where, at the fag end of the service, an employee has moved an application for correction of date of birth in the service book. The Standing Order of the petitioner's company clearly provided that any modification as to the date of birth could be made by moving a requisite application by the employee within one year from the date of enforcement of the Standing Order. The respondent No. 2, in the year 1997, had himself filled the form of for Employees' Provident Fund, wherein he has disclosed his date of birth as 1940 and not 1943. It is an admitted case of the respondent No. 2 till 1997 that his date of birth is 1940 and not 1943. 9. It was only after the notice was given by the company on 24.8.2000 that he was going to attain the age of superannuation on 31.10.2000 that the application was moved by respondent No.2 on 18.9.2000 for getting his date of birth corrected in the service book as 18.6.1943. 10. This Court finds that such belated application at the fag end of the career of an employee who is going to be superannuated cannot be entertained and the finding recorded by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is totally against the material on record. Further the Standing Order is of the year 1988 and till 1997 the employee had made no effort to get his date of birth corrected, though, the Standing Order categorically mentioned that the necessary application, if any, can be moved only within one year from the enforcement of Standing Order. 11. After perusal of record, I find that the findings recorded by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is totally against the material on record and the same cannot be sustained. 12. In view of the said fact, the order dated 19.3.2002 passed by respondent No.1, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut is hereby set aside. 13. The writ petition stands allowed.