ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under: “…to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Proceedings Ref.No:RG2 /PER/CF/321 dated 31-01-2020 in retiring the petitioner from service prematurely with effect from 01-01-2018 instead of continuing me till 01-06-2021 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and to set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue me in service till I attain the age of superannuation as on 01-06-2021 and the pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as an Excavation Plant Operator in the respondent company on 25.12.1981, and had submitted all valid documents, including VII Class Certificate and a driving license, both showing the petitioner’s date of birth as 02.06.1961. This date consistently reflected in all official records, including the SSC Certificate, Service Register, CMPF records, and training records. However, the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings dated 24.06.2019, abruptly terminated petitioner’s service based on a different date of birth 24.12.1957 without prior notice or proper verification. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No.25249 of 2019 and this Court referred the matter to the Age Determination Committee and the Committee, without conducting radiological/ossification tests and by ignoring valid documents, mechanically assessed the petitioner’s age as 24 years as on 24.12.1981, contrary to JBCCI Instruction No.76. However, based on the proceedings of Area Age Determination Committee dated 16.01.2020, the Respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 31.01.2020, upholding the previous termination proceedings of the petitioner dated 24.06.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: (A) The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.2 dated 31.01.2020 to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder: “ You have attended the above said AADC and submitted the copy of VII class certificate and claimed that your DOB as 02.06.1961. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: (A) The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.2 dated 31.01.2020 to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder: “ You have attended the above said AADC and submitted the copy of VII class certificate and claimed that your DOB as 02.06.1961. The committee had assessed your Date of Birth as 24 Yrs as on 24-12- 1981 (DOB: 24-12-1957) based on the Date of Birth entered in the Company's record at the time of your appointment in the Company. You have been explained the system of assessing the Age/DOB of an employee by the Area Age Determination Committee and the Welfare Officer/Explaining Officer of your Mine had explained the outcome of proceedings to you. Your Age/DOB is hereby confirmed as 24 Yrs as on 24-12-1981 (DOB: 24-12-1957). Accordingly you were supposed to retire after duty hours 31.12.2017 from the Company's services. Hence, the termination from the Company's service w.e.f. 24.06.2019 issued vide Lr. No. RG2/PER/10B/1852 dtd 24.06.2019 is stands correct.” (B) Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in particular, paragraph Nos.8, 15, 16 are extracted hereunder: “8. In reply to averments in Para 13 to 18, it is submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any proof with regard to his date of birth at the time of his initial appointment. As such, his age/date of birth was assessed by the Colliery Medical Officer to be 24 years as on 24.12.1987. If the petitioner has submitted his VII class certificate as claimed by him, there was no need to refer the petitioner to the Colliery Medical Officer for assessing his age/date of birth. Further, the Driving License and VII class certificate were submitted by the petitioner for appearing in driving test for the post of EP Operator, which were taken into consideration as proof of his educational qualification only. The petitioner’s claim that date of birth mentioned in his services records are without any basis is not true and correct and hence denied. Since the petitioner has not produced any proof of his age/date of birth at the time of his appointment, he was referred to Colliery Medical Officer for assessment of his age/date of birth. 15. The petitioner’s claim that date of birth mentioned in his services records are without any basis is not true and correct and hence denied. Since the petitioner has not produced any proof of his age/date of birth at the time of his appointment, he was referred to Colliery Medical Officer for assessment of his age/date of birth. 15. … The date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 24 years as on 24.12.1987 in Initial Medical Examination (Form-O) by the Colliery Medical Officer as per the Rules of Respondent Company and his age/date of birth stands good till his date of his retirement. 16. The petitioner has to submit the claim forms for claiming his terminal benefits and the following terminal benefits for which he is entitled to. Sl. No Description Amount Settled Remarks 1 CMPF ACCUMULATIONS 54,58,855-00 2 GRATUITY 20,00,000-00 3 FBIS 15,290-00 4 PENSION 25,034-00 Per Month It is submitted that the Respondents have informed to the petitioner on several times to submit the claim forms for settlement of his terminal benefits since 24.06.2019, but the petitioner has not submitted the required claim forms/applications. It is further submitted that on 07.05.2020, the respondent company has sent a detailed letter through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due informing the petitioner to submit claim forms so as to enable the respondent company to process and to pay the same and the same was returned undelivered with a postal endorsement that intimation declared unclaimed hence returned to sender”. Due to non-submission of claim forms the respondent company is unable to process and pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner.” 5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, as per the certificate issued by the Chairman, District Educational Officer, Karimnagar, pertaining to the common board examination for Class VII in Karimnagar District, the petitioner's date of birth is registered as 02.06.1961. The said certificate was issued to the petitioner on 16.04.1973, with Roll No.5260. Additionally, as per the driving license of the petitioner, his date of birth is also registered as 02.06.1961. According to the records maintained by the respondent company, specifically the statement pertaining to OCP-3 (drag line) employees' date of birth and date of retirement list, the petitioner's name appears at serial No.18 with a date of birth registered as 02.06.1961, and date of retirement as 30.06.2021. According to the records maintained by the respondent company, specifically the statement pertaining to OCP-3 (drag line) employees' date of birth and date of retirement list, the petitioner's name appears at serial No.18 with a date of birth registered as 02.06.1961, and date of retirement as 30.06.2021. Furthermore, when the service card was prepared for the petitioner in the respondent company on 26.06.1985, the petitioner's date of birth was also indicated as 02.06.1961. However, the impugned proceedings were issued, terminating the service of the petitioner on 24.06.2019, on the ground that the committee had assessed the petitioner's date of birth as 24 years as on 24.12.1981, based on the date of birth entered into the company's records at the time of the petitioner's appointment and vide proceedings dated 31.01.2020, the petitioner had been retired from service with effect from 01.01.2018, instead of being continued until 01.06.2021. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that even as per the particulars in the proceedings of the Age Determine Committee dated 16.01.2020 it is very clearly indicated in the EP control forum (manual as 02.06.1991 in the EPR SAP record as 02.06.1961 and also as per the SSC passed issued in the order 1987 as 02.06.1961. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that, in view of the fact that the entire service record of the petitioner in the respondent company indicates the petitioner’s date of birth as 02.06.1961, the service of the petitioner cannot be unilaterally terminated on 24.06.2019 on the ground that the committee had recorded the petitioner’s age as 24 years as on 24.12.1981. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in particular, paragraph Nos. 8, 15, and 16 (referred to and extracted above), contends that the petitioner’s claim that the date of birth mentioned in the service records of the respondent company is 02.06.1961 is without any basis. The petitioner did not produce any proof of his date of birth at the time of his appointment. Therefore, he was referred to the respondent company’s Medical Officer for determination of his age/date of birth. The petitioner did not produce any proof of his date of birth at the time of his appointment. Therefore, he was referred to the respondent company’s Medical Officer for determination of his age/date of birth. Accordingly, the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded based on the assessment that he was 24 years old as on 24.12.1981, and this date continued to be treated as his date of birth until his retirement. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 31.01.2020, and the same warrants no interference by this Court. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 9. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the committee had assessed the petitioner’s age as 24 years as on 24.12.1981, based on the date of birth entered in the office records at the time of the petitioner’s appointment in the company. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 31.01.2020 had been issued to the petitioner retiring him from service with effect from 01.01.2018. 10. A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 31.01.2020 does not indicate any reasons for declaring the petitioner’s age as 24 years as on 24.12.1981 in the year 2020. I t also does not refer to the evidence available in the service records of the respondent company, such as the OCP-3 (Track Line employees’ date of birth and date of retirement list), where the petitioner’s name appears at Serial No.18, indicating his date of birth as 02.06.1961 and his date of retirement as 30.06.2021. Furthermore, the service card dated 26.06.1985 issued by the respondent company also records the petitioner’s date of birth as 02.06.1961. 11. In the case of “State of M.P. Vs. Premlal Shrivas”, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 , in particular, at paragraph Nos.8, 12 and 14, it is observed and 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 (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [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. 14 . 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. 14 . It is manifest from a bare reading of Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding on the government servant. It is clear that the said Rule has been made in order to limit the scope of correction of date of birth in the service record. However, an exception has been carved out in the Rule, permitting the public servant to request later for correcting his age provided that incorrect recording of age is on account of a clerical error or mistake. This is a salutary rule, which was, perhaps, inserted with a view to safeguard the interest of employees so that they do not suffer because of the mistakes committed by the official staff. Obviously, only that clerical error or mistake would fall within the ambit of the said Rule which is caused due to the negligence or want of proper care on the part of some person other than the employee seeking correction. Onus is on the employee concerned to prove such negligence. 12. It is true that there are catena of judgments by the Apex Court which have laid down the law that a prayer for change of date of birth at the fag end of a career is impermissible. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was terminated on 24.06.2019 itself, and the petitioner was informed several times to submit the claim forms for settlement of petitioner’s terminal benefits since 24.06.2019 but the petitioner however did not respond to the said letters as indicated in paragraph No.16 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is also true that a change of date of birth in the service record at fag end of the career is permissible only in exceptional cases, based on irrefutable proof, as observed in the head note of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 , State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas. 13. It is also true that a change of date of birth in the service record at fag end of the career is permissible only in exceptional cases, based on irrefutable proof, as observed in the head note of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 , State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas. 13. In view of the fact that, in the present case, the service records of the petitioner in the respondent company themselves indicate the petitioner’s date of birth as 02.06.1961 and the petitioner’s date of retirement as 30.06.2021 as reflected in the employees’ Date of Birth and Date of Retirement list, as well as the service card issued by the respondent company, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents are obligated to reconsider the decision dated 31.01.2020, by which the petitioner was retired from service with effect from 01.01.2018 by duly taking into consideration the respondent company’s own service records pertaining to the petitioner, in accordance to law, and after providing the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, in the interest of justice. 14. 14. Taking into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The certificate dated 16.04.1973 issued by the Chairman, District Education Officer, Karimnagar, the driving license of the petitioner and the service records i.e., OCP-3 (Track Line employees’ date of birth and date of retirement list), indicating the petitioner’s date of birth at serial No.18 as 02.06.1961, and the date of retirement as 30.06.1991 and also the date of service card prepared and issued by the respondent company indicating the petitioners date of birth as 02.06.1961, d) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above), e) The contents of the impugned proceedings dated 31.01.2020 of 2 nd respondent, f) The proceedings dated 16.01.2020 of the Area Age Determination Committee of the respondent company indicating the petitioners date of birth as 02.06.1961, The writ petition is allowed directing the 2 nd respondent to reconsider the decision dated 31.01.2020 in retiring the petitioner from service w.e.f., 01.01.2018, in accordance to law in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner by duly examining the date of birth of the petitioner as per the respondent company’s own service records for the purpose of pension and monetary and other benefits, since admittedly even as per the averments made at para 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above), the terminal benefits due to the petitioner as per petitioner’s legal entitlement had not been claimed by the petitioner as on date and pass appropriate orders within a period of four(4) weeks from today and communicate the decision to the petitioner herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.