JUDGMENT : The issue which has been raised in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertains to a challenge concerning the date of superannuation of the petitioner. The primary contention of the petitioner is that based on an incorrect recording in his Service Book, he has been prematurely retired from service. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was initially inducted in the services of the Inland Water Transport vide an appointment letter dated 20.11.1982 as a Lightman. It is contended that thereafter he was promoted to the post of ‘Laskar’. The petitioner was furnished with a notice dated 27.12.2016 by which his date of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation was informed as 31.03.2017. It is the contention of the petitioner that his date of birth should be 01.04.1958 as per the School Certificate which the petitioner has enclosed with the writ petition. Accordingly, a representation was made which was duly forwarded to the Directorate of Inland Water Transport on 18.01.2017. It is the contention that no action whatsoever was taken on the said representation. Accordingly, the instant petition has been filed. 3. I have heard Shri P.S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, IWT who has filed the affidavit-in-opposition on 26.04.2017. 4. Shri Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the School Certificate issued by the Head Pandit, Raitkuchi L.B.M.V. School of Kamrup District dated 25.01.1982. It is contended that as per the said certificate, the age of the petitioner was stated to be 14 years 10 months as on 01.02.1973. 5. The learned counsel submits that deducing the date of birth from the said certificate, the same comes to 01.04.1958. However, by the impugned action, the service of the petitioner has been sought to be reduced by one year. The learned counsel has also emphasized on the aspect that though the Department is under an obligation to have the Service Book verified at least once in 5 years, the same was not done, as a result of which the petitioner was not even aware as to the particulars of the date of birth recorded in his Service Book. The learned counsel has also emphasized on the aspect that though the Department is under an obligation to have the Service Book verified at least once in 5 years, the same was not done, as a result of which the petitioner was not even aware as to the particulars of the date of birth recorded in his Service Book. It is submitted that the petitioner did not have any role in such recording of the date of birth which has been done by some Officer and because of the error, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing the attention of the Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed on 11.07.201, more particularly the Annexure A therein has submitted that while the initial notice dated 27.12.2016 had specified his date of superannuation as 31.03.2017, by the said enclosure dated 29.04.2017, the petitioner was released on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017. It is submitted that the respondent Directorate is not even certain about the date of birth which would indicate that the recording of the date of the birth in the Service Book of the petitioner cannot be held to be free from any error. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Port Trust vs. Hymanshu International reported in AIR 1979 SC 1144 whereby it has been laid down that the respondent-State should not take up technical issues to defeat substantial justice. 7. Per contra, Ms. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel has strenuously opposed the writ petition and the relief claimed. By producing the original Service Book of the petitioner along with other documents relating to his service, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no ambiguity in the date of birth recorded in the Service Book which is 01.04.1957. She submits that the said recording was done in accordance with law and there is no overwriting or correction of any nature and rather there is an endorsement of the officer who had recorded such date of birth after verification of the materials on record. She has also highlighted the aspect as to when the complaint regarding the so called error in the date of birth have been made. She has also highlighted the aspect as to when the complaint regarding the so called error in the date of birth have been made. It is submitted that as per the rules governing the field, an employee is required to raise any issue regarding the date of birth at least 3 years prior to the date of superannuation and raising of such issues at the fag end of the service period is deprecated by a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. It is submitted that such practice is to be discouraged as the same will not only be against the interest of public service but would also open a flood gate as every employee, at the fag end of his or her career would approach for a change of date of birth. The learned Standing Counsel has justified the said submission by contending that an employee has access to the Service Book periodically and error, if any, should have been brought to the notice of the authorities. 9. To dispel any doubt on the aspect of opportunity, the learned Standing Counsel has also referred to the Provisional Gradation List published by the Department in the year 2010 in which the petitioner’s name is recorded against serial no. 22. It is clearly stated in the said Provisional Gradation List that any objection to the same may be submitted within one month otherwise the list would be treated as final. Against the details of the petitioner stated, his date of birth is clearly reflected as 01.04.1957. It is submitted that no objection of any nature was ever raised by the petitioner. 10. The learned Standing Counsel has accordingly submitted that the writ petition be dismissed. The learned Standing Counsel has also referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. T.V. Venugopalan reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 in which the following observations have been made. “7. … This Court has, repeatedly, been holding that the inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth. 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 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. ….” 11. She has also referred to the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 wherein it has been laid down as follows: “ 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 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 582] wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and 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, (2005) 11 SCC 465 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 96]. 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 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106] relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. 17. In another judgment in [State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106] 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 : 2000 All LJ 2341] 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 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449] 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 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 promotions 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. 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 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 574] 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 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375] ). *** 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.” 12. Shri Deka, the learned counsel in his rejoinder has submitted that the petitioner being in the lower grade of his employment may not be held at fault for not being able to raise the issue earlier and it was only on receipt of the notice dated 27.12.2016 that he had actually gathered the knowledge of such error in the Service Book. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Satyen Talukdar vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2014 (3) GLT 464. In the said case, this Court had laid down that the principle of estoppel may not be applicable in a case of correction of date of birth. 13. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Satyen Talukdar vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2014 (3) GLT 464. In the said case, this Court had laid down that the principle of estoppel may not be applicable in a case of correction of date of birth. 13. The rival submissions made have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully perused. 14. The appointment of the petitioner was in the year 1982. In the Service Book of the petitioner which was created on such appointment, his date of birth has been recorded as 01.04.1957. 15. This Court has carefully examined the said entry in the Service Book which has been produced by the learned Standing Counsel. There is no correction or alteration of any nature and the recording appears to be in order. The issue which therefore would arise that even assuming such recording to be erroneous, can it be corrected more particularly at the verge of the retirement of the particular employee? 16. The Service Book presupposes that the entries should be renewed at least every 5 years. A perusal of the Service Book would show that several entries have been made from time to time on the aspect of grant of increment, promotion and change in other service conditions and every employee has an access to such Service Book. Be that as it may, there is admittedly on record, a Provisional Gradation List of 2010 in which not only the name of the petitioner figures against serial no. 52, even his date of birth has been stated clearly as 01.04.1957. No objection was admittedly made by the petitioner against such details put in the Provisional Gradation List which were specifically called for and therefore the same had attained finality. 17. In the instant case, the first representation was made only after receipt of the notice of superannuation dated 27.12.2016 as per which the petitioner was to retire on 31.03.2017. No objection was admittedly made by the petitioner against such details put in the Provisional Gradation List which were specifically called for and therefore the same had attained finality. 17. In the instant case, the first representation was made only after receipt of the notice of superannuation dated 27.12.2016 as per which the petitioner was to retire on 31.03.2017. Though, certain submissions have been made that the authorities themselves were not certain about the date of the birth as the release was made ultimately on 30.04.2017, this Court is of the opinion that the benefit of one month given to the petitioner would be on the account of giving the benefit of the remaining days of a month which is a practice of the State Government while calculating the actual date of release. In any case, the release made on 30.04.2017 is only giving the benefit of an extra month and would not have any bearing effect on the issue before this Court. 18. The reliance by the petitioner on the case of Satyen Talukdar (supra) has been examined. This Court, in the said case has proceeded on the basis that there was an error in calculation. The Service Book in the instant case however does not even make passing reference to any document which was given by the petitioner based on which the date of birth was calculated. Under those condition, the facts of Satyen Talukdar (supra) is distinguishable. The reference to the case of Madras Port Trust (supra) has also been examined wherein the authorities are required to take a holistic approach without taking the technicalities. At the same time, a caveat has been laid down in the following manner: “2…Of course, if a government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well-founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the. purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable…“ It is also seen that the observations on the technicalities aspect was on an issue of limitation. purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable…“ It is also seen that the observations on the technicalities aspect was on an issue of limitation. On the other hand, the present objection is not a technical objection but the requirement of law which is also based on sound reasons and in the interest of public service. 19. The law holding the field on the issue before this Court is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case relied upon by the Department, the practice of approaching the lawyer for correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service career has been deprecated in the strongest of terms. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the facts and circumstances and by following the law holding the field, this Court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are however directed to ensure payment of pension calculated from the date when the petitioner was released from service. 21. The original Service Book is handed back to the learned Standing Counsel.