Order : For the reasons stated in the application (I.A. No.1/2025), for taking legal representatives of the deceased petitioner Smt. Khatu, it is allowed. The legal representatives are ordered to be taken on record and the amended cause title is also taken on record. The main case is taken up for hearing today itself. Main case 1. The petitioner Smt. Khatu (since deceased) approached this Court seeking command to the respondents to correct her date of birth in her service record and further quashing of order of superannuation dated 08.05.2007 (Annex.1). 2. Briefly speaking, the relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are that the Petitioner Smt. Khatu (since deceased) was initially engaged on daily wage basis as a Class IV employee. She was granted semi permanent status on the post of Beldar vide order dated 21.10.1995 (Annex.6) w.e.f. 01.04.1994 mentioning her date of birth as 01.06.1947. 2.1 On a representation made by the petitioner for correction of date of birth, the respondent No.5, vide communication dated 22.05.2003 (Annex.7), sought clarification from the office of the respondent No.3 regarding her date of birth. However, nothing happened and vide order dated 08.05.2007 (Annex.1), the petitioner was ordered to be superannuated w.e.f. 31.05.2007 and she stood retired accordingly. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that her correct date of birth is 15.04.1965, which is borne out from birth certificate issued on 06.05.2005 (Annex.4) and further Voters' ID Card (Annex.5). As an employee of State Government, the petitioner is subject to retirement at the age of 60, which will occur on 30.04.2025. However, the respondent department informed the petitioner that her date of retirement is 31.05.2007. Hence, the present petition. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case record. 4. Concededly, Smt. Khatu (since deceased) was granted semi permanent status vide order dated 21.10.1995 (Annex.6) w.e.f. 01.01.1994 mentioning her date of birth as 01.06.1947 and for the first time, any action taken on her behalf for change of date of birth, as pleaded in affirmation in the petition, was vide representation/application in the year 2003. 5. On this ground alone, I find no grounds to interfere. Reference in this connection may be had to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Burn Standard Co. 5. On this ground alone, I find no grounds to interfere. Reference in this connection may be had to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar , (1995) 4 SCC 172 , relevant part whereof is reproduced herein below : “10. Entertainment by High Courts of writ applications made by employees of the Government or its instrumentalities at the fag end of their services and when they are due for retirement from their services, in our view, is unwarranted. It would be so for the reason that no employee can claim a right to correction of birth date and entertainment of such writ applications for correction of dates of birth of some employees of Government or its instrumentalities will mar the chances of promotion of their juniors and prove to be an undue encouragement to the other employees to make similar applications at the fag end of their service careers with the sole object of preventing their retirements when due. Extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, in our considered view, is not meant to make employees of Government or its instrumentalities to continue in service beyond the period of their entitlement according to dates of birth accepted by their employers, placing reliance on the so- called newly-found material. The fact that an employee of Government or its instrumentality who has been in service for over decades, with no objection whatsoever raised as to his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct, when all of a sudden comes forward towards the fag end of his service career with a writ application before the High Court seeking correction of his date of birth in his Service Record, the very conduct of non-raising of an objection in the matter by the employee, in our view, should be a sufficient reason for the High Court, not to entertain such applications on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay and laches. Moreover, discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court can never be said to have been reasonably and judicially exercised if it entertains such writ application, for no employee, who had grievance as to his date of birth in his “Service and Leave Record” could have genuinely waited till the fag end of his service career to get it corrected by availing of the extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation, in holding, that ordinarily High Courts should not, in exercise of their discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ application/petition filed by an employee of the Government or its instrumentality, towards the fag end of his service, seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his “Service and Leave Record” or Service Register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement. 13. When we turn to the case of Respondent 1, he did not object to his date of birth or age entered in his “Service and Leave Record” with Appellant 1 during 36 years of his service. When the writ application filed by Respondent 1 was entertained by the High Court, it is difficult to find that it has used its discretion in the matter either judiciously or reasonably, and for that reason alone the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court under appeal by which the order of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed calls to be interfered with and set aside.” 6. On a Court query being posed to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner remained a mute spectator during this period, no satisfactory response has come forth. 7. There is a bald assertion in the petition sans any documentary proof that in the year 2003, the petitioner had filed an application in the department seeking correction of her date of birth. However, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner remained silent all these years, which clearly shows that she had acquiesced to her fait accompli. 8. Furthermore, it transpires that the legal representatives of the petitioner are not possibly in a position how to establish the disputed facts, which were pleaded by the petitioner as she has expired during the pendency of the writ proceedings. 9. As an upshot, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. 8. Furthermore, it transpires that the legal representatives of the petitioner are not possibly in a position how to establish the disputed facts, which were pleaded by the petitioner as she has expired during the pendency of the writ proceedings. 9. As an upshot, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. All the pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.