JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to correct his date of birth from 12.06.1957 to 20.02.1962. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Handling Labour by the Food Corporation of India on 01.01.1994. It is averred that the petitioner is a rustic villager from Gujjar Community and as such, he did not know his actual date of birth at the time when he was engaged as a Handling Labour. His form is stated to have been filled up by his friend, wherein his date of birth was shown as 12.06.1957 but no age proof was demanded by the respondents, nor was produced by the petitioner at that time. It has been submitted that recently, a list of employees was displayed by the respondents, in which the petitioner found his date of birth reflected as 12.06.1957. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained school leaving from Govt. Middle School, Barmeeni, which reflects his date of birth as 20.02.1962. It is averred that a Committee of officers was appointed by the respondents to examine the authenticity of the said certificate and the Committee reported that the said certificate is genuine. In spite of this, the respondents have not effected correction in the date of birth of the petitioner, which has compelled him to file the instant petition. 3. The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition, in which it has been submitted that respondents cannot change and accept the date of birth of the petitioner at this belated stage. It has been contended that in view of Para 2(a) of the Office Memorandum, issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India on 16.12.2014, alteration of date of birth of a Government servant has to be made on the basis of his request made within five years of his entry into Government service. On this ground, it has been submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed on 01.01.1994. He has approached the respondents for effecting correction in his date of birth in the year 2017, whereafter a Committee of officers was appointed by the respondents to determine veracity of the date of birth certificate produced by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed on 01.01.1994. He has approached the respondents for effecting correction in his date of birth in the year 2017, whereafter a Committee of officers was appointed by the respondents to determine veracity of the date of birth certificate produced by the petitioner. Though the date of birth certificate produced by the petitioner was found to be genuine, the question arises, as to whether correction in his date of birth can be effected after 23 years from the date of his entry into the service at the fag end of his service career. 6. Office Memorandum dated 16.12.2014 on which the respondents have placed reliance, clearly states that alteration of date of birth of a Government servant cannot be made after its declaration by the Government servant and its acceptance by the appropriate authority. Alteration of date of birth of a Government servant, as per this Office Memorandum, can be made only if a request is made by the Government servant within five years of his entry into service and it is established that a genuine bona fide mistake has occurred. In the instant case the petitioner has declared his date of birth at the time of his entry into service as 12.06.1957 and the same was accepted by the respondents. He cannot seek correction in his date of birth after 23 years of entering into service at the fag end of his career. 7. The law on change of date of birth is well settled by now in terms of various pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Courts of the country. In this regard a reference is made to a few judgments of the Supreme Court. In Home Department vs. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155, the Supreme Court has held as under : “An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. 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. 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 for ever…” 8. Further, in State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 , the Supreme Court has 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 over their rights.” 9. Again, in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781, the Supreme Court held as under : “5. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights.” 9. Again, in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781, the Supreme Court held as under : “5. The law with regard to correction of date of birth has been time and again discussed by this Court and held that once the date of birth is entered in the service record, as per the educational certificates and accepted by the employee, the same cannot be changed. Not only that, this Court has also held that a claim for change in date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of retirement” 10. From the aforesaid analysis of law on the subject, it is clear that application for change of date of birth can be made only as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable and even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is also clear that an application for change of date of birth can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when it is made at the fag end of the service career of the employee i.e. when an employee is about to retire on attaining age of superannuation. 11. In the instant case, as per the date of birth declared by the petitioner, he was due to retire in the year 2017 but in the same year, he has approached the respondents for correction of his date of birth and thereafter filed the instant petition. In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth cannot be considered. 12. Viewed thus, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.