JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as ‘06.04.1969’ in place of ‘24.07.1963’ in his service records including Form-B, service excerpts, CMPF records etc. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the judgment dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3962 of 2006, 25 persons including the petitioner were appointed as General Mazdoor Category-1 vide office order dated 23/25.03.2011 issued by the respondent No.3 wherein the petitioner’s age was recorded as 47 years 6 months as on 24.01.2011 on the basis of assessment made by the Apex Medical Board, Koyla Nagar Hospital, Dhanbad. At the time of appointment, the petitioner had submitted documentary proof i.e. Admit Card issued by the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB) for appearing in Annual Secondary School Examination, 1986 wherein his date of birth was shown as 06.04.1969. However, the respondents wrongly recorded the petitioner’s date of birth as 24.07.1963 in his service book on the basis of his age assessed by the said Medical Board which is contrary to Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA)-III. Though the petitioner had appeared in the said Matriculation Examination conducted by the BSEB in the year 1986, however, he could not pass the said examination and hence he did not collect his marks sheet. Subsequently, in order to make out his ground, he obtained Transfer Certificate from the concerned High School on 29.09.2016 and Matriculation marks sheet from the BSEB on 29.06.2019 and produced the same before the respondent No.5 for necessary correction in his date of birth, but the same has not yet been corrected. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III (Annexure-I) contains the procedure for determination/verification of the age of an employee, Clause (A)(ii) of which stipulates the procedure regarding age determination of employees at the time of appointment, who are non-matriculate, but educated. As per the said procedure, if the appointees have pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. As per the said procedure, if the appointees have pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. Further, Clause (A)(iv) contains the procedure of age determination of illiterate employees, as per which if the appointees are not covered under sub-clause (i), (ii) & (iii) of Clause (A), the date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence as produced by them. 4. It is further submitted that the NCWA is a bilateral agreement between the respondents and the employees and any action contrary to the same is bad in law. The age determined by the Medical Board will not supersede the documentary proof disclosing the petitioner’s correct date of birth as 06.04.1969 since entry of the same is much prior to the date of assessment of his age made by the said Medical Board as well as the date of his appointment. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s age was assessed as 47 years and 6 months as on 24.01.2011 by the Age Assessment Board according to which, his date of birth is 24.07.1963. The said date of birth has been mentioned in all the records of the respondent BCCL viz service book and Form-B etc. The petitioner has also signed the relevant portions of different records duly accepting and acknowledging the correctness of the entries made therein. He never raised any objection whatsoever regarding the entries relating to his date of birth made in various records of the respondent-BCCL for more than 10 years. However, he has filed the present writ petition in the year 2021 at the fag end of his service as he is going to retire on 30.07.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is well settled proposition of law that the dispute relating to date of birth cannot be raised at the fag end of service. Thus, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise any dispute regarding his date of birth at this stage particularly when he has accepted the age assessed by the Medical Board without any objection whatsoever. It is well settled proposition of law that the dispute relating to date of birth cannot be raised at the fag end of service. Thus, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise any dispute regarding his date of birth at this stage particularly when he has accepted the age assessed by the Medical Board without any objection whatsoever. The petitioner did not submit any educational certificate in support of his date of birth at the time of his initial appointment and on the contrary, he readily appeared before the Age Assessment Board for assessment of his age without any objection and even acknowledged the correctness of his date of birth by putting his signature on different records of the respondent-BCCL. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner has sought direction upon the respondents to correct his date of birth as 06.04.1969 in the service records on the basis of the Admit Card issued by the BSEB as well as the Transfer Certificate issued by the concerned High School where he studied. 7. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner’s date of birth has been assessed on the basis of the opinion of the Apex Medical Board, Koyla Nagar Hospital, Dhanbad ignoring Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III which provides that if the appointee is non-matriculate, but educated and has pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, his date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate shall be treated as his correct date of birth. 8. To appreciate the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III (Annexure-I), Clause (A) of which speaks about determination of age at the time of appointment. The said clause reads as under: “(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment (i) Matriculates In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. The said clause reads as under: “(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment (i) Matriculates In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. (ii) Non-matriculates but educated In the case of appointees who have pursued studies in a recognised educational institution, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate, shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. (iii) Ex-servicemen In the case of Ex-servicemen who are not matriculates, the date of birth recorded in the Army Discharge Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. In the case of Ex-servicemen who have passed Matriculation examination, the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate will be treated as correct date of birth, provided they have passed the Matriculation examination before entering the Defence Services; otherwise the date of birth recorded in Army Discharge Certificate will be taken as correct date of birth. (iv) Illiterate. In the cases of appointees not covered under the foregoing clauses, the date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence as produced by the appointee. Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.” 9. On bare perusal of the aforesaid stipulations, it would appear that four criteria have been fixed for determination of age at the time of appointment of the appointees. If an appointee has passed Matriculation or equivalent examination, his date of birth will be determined on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate. If an employee is non-matriculate, but has pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, the date of birth will be determined on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate issued by the said recognized educational institution. If an employee is non-matriculate, but has pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, the date of birth will be determined on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate issued by the said recognized educational institution. In case of ex-serviceman who is non-matriculate, the date of birth recorded in the Army Discharge Certificate will be treated as his correct date of birth and if he is Matriculate, the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate will be treated as his correct date of birth, provided that he has passed Matriculation Examination before entering into the Defence Service. A person who does not come under the aforesaid three categories, will be treated as illiterate and in that case, his date of birth will be decided by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence as produced by the appointee and the said date of birth will be treated as final. 10. In the case in hand, the petitioner claims that he was non-matriculate, but educated and as such his date of birth recorded in the Admit Card and the Transfer Certificate was required to be taken into consideration. On the other hand, the respondents have contended that since no documentary proof was produced by the petitioner regarding his date of birth at the time of appointment, his age was assessed by the Medical Board and the same was duly recorded in Form-B Register and other service records which were duly acknowledged by him and he did not raise any objection against the same. However, at the fag end of his service, he is raising such claim which cannot be accepted. 11. I have perused the office order dated 23/25.03.2011 issued by the respondent No.3 wherein the petitioner’s age has been recorded as 47 years 6 months as on 24.01.2011 which was assessed by the duly constituted Medical Board. The petitioner’s date of birth has been mentioned as 24.07.1963 in Form-B Register brought on record by the respondents by way of supplementary counter affidavit dated 10.04.2023 wherein he has also put his signature duly acknowledging the recording of his date of birth. In the service book and the identity card, the petitioner’s date of birth has also been recorded as 24.07.1963. Thus, his date of birth has been mentioned as 24.07.1963 in the almost all the service records. 12. In the service book and the identity card, the petitioner’s date of birth has also been recorded as 24.07.1963. Thus, his date of birth has been mentioned as 24.07.1963 in the almost all the service records. 12. Though the petitioner has claimed that he had produced the Admit Card issued by the BSEB at the time of appointment, however, he never raised any objection regarding his date of birth mentioned in the service records which substantiates the contention of the respondents that due to non-availability of any such document at the time of appointment, his date of birth was assessed by the Apex Medical Board in view of sub-clause (iv) of Clause A of Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III (Annexure-I). 13. Though the petitioner was appointed in the year 2011, he never raised any objection regarding mentioning of his wrong date of birth in the service records for about 10 years and in the year 2021, he filed the present writ petition seeking correction of his date of birth when his retirement is due on 31.07.2023. 14. In the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. Vs. T.P. Nataraja reported in (2021) 12 SCC 27 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring several earlier judicial pronouncements on the subject, has summarized the law with respect to change of date of birth of an employee. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “10.1. In [Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155], it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 158, para 7) “7. 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. 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.” 10.2. 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.” 10.2. In State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 ] in paras 8 and 12, it is observed and held as under : (SCC pp. 667 & 669) “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 (see [Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 ]). *** 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. *** 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.” 10.3. In [LIC v. R. Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781], it is observed as under : (SCC p. 782, para 5) “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.” 10.4. In [Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 ] of which one of us (A.S. Bopanna, J.) was a party to the Bench has observed and held in paras 9 & 10 as under : (SCC pp. 415-17) “9. This Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag-end of service is not sustainable. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in [State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423 ] wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note of and it was held as hereunder : (SCC pp. 428-29, paras 16-17 & 19) ‘16. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in [State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423 ] wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note of and it was held as hereunder : (SCC pp. 428-29, paras 16-17 & 19) ‘16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465 ]. In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag-end of the service career. 17. In another judgment in [State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477 ] 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 [Pitamber Dutt Semwal v. State of U.P., 1999 SCC OnLine All 1610] of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades. *** 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 Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155] reads as under: (SCC pp. 158-59, para 7) “7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fagend 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. 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.” ’ 10. This Court in fact 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. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 ] it is held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 667 & 669, paras 8 & 12) ‘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 (see [Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 ] ). *** 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.’ ” 11. 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.’ ” 11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarised 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 laches 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.” 15. Thus, correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right even if there is cogent evidence for the same and the application for correction of date of birth can be rejected when it is made at the time when an employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. 16. I have also perused the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dashrath Prasad Mahto Vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BCCL & Ors. (L.P.A No. 393 of 2021) wherein learned Bench declined to accept the claim for correction of date of birth observing that the issue of date of birth was raised by the employee based upon the certificate of Madhyama Examination issued by the Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Bihar wherein his date of birth was shown as 10.02.1965, but the aforesaid certificate was not worth consideration since the concerned employee did not produce any document to show his valid age/date of birth at the time of entry in service and that was the reason the appointing authority, at the time of appointment, had asked the said employee to participate before the Apex Medical Board for age assessment and on the basis of the assessment made by the Apex Medical Board, the age of the employee was assessed to be 34 years as on 09.02.1996. Learned Division Bench, after referring few judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that correction in the date of birth would not be allowed at the fag end of service. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put much reliance on a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s BCCL & Ors. reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Jhar 222. I have perused the said judgment wherein the factual position was that the concerned employee had passed Matriculation Examination prior to entering into the service and in the Matriculation Certificate, his date of birth was recorded as 01.07.1951 whereas in the Service Register, his date of birth was recorded as 16.07.1948. The said employee was issued identity card wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 01.07.1951. When the Service Book was served to the said employee for verification, he corrected his date of birth, however, the same was not corrected in the Service Register by the department. Learned Full Bench thus observed that the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated by the Education Board was a conclusive proof of age as both the parties were governed by Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA. Learned Full Bench also held that normally an employee would not be permitted to apply for change of his date of birth at the fag end of his service career, however, if the Court is 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 when clear case relating to correction in date of birth is made out on the basis of clinching materials, necessary direction for correction in the said date of birth can be given. 18. I am of the view that the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case. In the said case, the concerned employee had raised his objection during verification of his service book. Moreover, in the identity card issued to the said employee, his date of birth was correctly mentioned which was never objected by the employer. In the said case, the concerned employee had raised his objection during verification of his service book. Moreover, in the identity card issued to the said employee, his date of birth was correctly mentioned which was never objected by the employer. In the case in hand, Form-B Register, service book and identity card of the petitioner disclose his date of birth as 24.07.1963 and he never claimed for correction of his date of birth by producing School Leaving Certificate as was required under sub-clause (ii) of Clause A of Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the NCWA-III (Annexure-I). The petitioner has himself stated that since he had not passed the Matriculation Examination, he did not collect his Transfer Certificate as well as marks sheet and the said documents were obtained by him in the year 2016 and 2019 respectively which shows laches on his part and hence it cannot be said that any injustice has been caused to the petitioner. 19. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain the present writ petition for correction of date of birth of the petitioner in his service records at the fag end of service. 20. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.