1. Heard.

2. Merely because the petitioner-appellant may have filed several writ petitions at the High Court is no ground that he sould succeed with the last one.

3. When the petitioner-appellant entered into service in 1956, he declared his age as 22 years. The petitioner-appellant as on record continued to serve till 1998. The Bihar State Electricity Board gave a memo to him, to the effect, that he would be deemed to have retired from 31.12.1994, Even when the petitioner-appellant had joined the service in 1956 on the declaratorn of age given by him, he had discharged more than 38 years of service. By default having worked until 1998, 4 years beyond the date of his retirement, he worked for 42 years.

4. The petitioner-appellant has had the benefit of service on both ends. He worked and got salary even after attaining the age of superannuation. Now the petitioner-appellant desires that his date of birth be changed from 1994 to 1988 for the purposes of pension. The case of the petitioner-appellant is not equitable.

5. The court has no reason to differ with the order of the learned judge recorded on the petition.

6. Dismissed.