ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure P1) by which the petitioner was sought to be retired w.e.f. 31.5.2012 attaining the age of superannuation.

2. Mr.C.J.K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was regularized on 1.10.2008 and thereafter date of birth of the petitioner has taken as 7.5.1950 and he has been retired during the pendency of this writ petition on 31.5.2012 taking his date of birth as 7.5.1950, as such, the petitioner's date of birth be taken as 18.7.1959 as recorded in Annexure P4 and consequential benefits be provided to him.

3. On the other hand, Mr.Animesh Tiwari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State, would submit that the when notice of retirement was served to the petitioner indicating that he will be retired from service w.e.f 31.5.2012 only thereafter this writ petition was filed on 16.2.2012 and he has also given undertaking affidavit before the authorities at the time of regularization on 1.7.2008 that his date of birth is 7.5.1950 and as such, at the fag end of service and in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

5. The petitioner was regularized on the post of unskilled labour w.e.f. 1.10.2008. At the time of his regularization, on being asked by the Department, he has submitted affidavit in which date of birth has been recorded as 7.5.1950, which has been filed as Annexure R1. From the date of submission till the date of retirement/date of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner has never disputed his date of birth as recorded in affidavit (Annexure R1) that his date of birth is not 7.5.1950. When notice dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure P1) was served to him that he will be retired from service w.e.f. 31.5.2012, then only he filed this writ petition on 16.2.2012 claiming that his actual date of birth is 18.7.1959.

6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra) has clearly held that date of birth cannot be corrected at the fag end of service career. It was observed as under:

“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 the case of State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423 wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder: (SCC pp.42829, paras 1617 & 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. 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 : [(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 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. 15859,