Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) WRIT petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 20th February, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in WRIT Petition No. 8847of 2009 dismissing the writ petition with costs, has preferred this Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules. WRIT petitioner-appellant was an employee of the erstwhile Martin Burn Company Ltd., which was taken over by the U.P. State Electricity Board. There was controversy in regard to his date of birth. Petitioner claims that his date of birth to be 27th April, 1941. Ultimately he filed Original Suit No.506 of 1994 inter alia seeking the relief that his date of birth is 27th April, 1941. In the Suit, it was held that his date of birth is 3rd November, 1936 and on that basis he was retired in the year 1996. Petitioner thereafter filed the writ petition inter alia praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to correct his service book on the basis of the service book maintained by the Martin Burn Company Ltd. and to pay him the entire arrears of salary treating his date of birth to be 27th April, 1941. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition inter alia observing that the finding recorded in the Suit that he was born on 3rd November, 1936 will operate as res-judicata. In this connection, the learned Single Judge observed as follows:- "The petitioner filed a Suit in which the finding was recorded that he was born on 3.11.1936. These findings between the parties will operate as res-judicata in any subsequent proceedings. The fact, whether the petitioner could have discovered and has come to know and has obtained the certificate from Martin Burn Company Ltd. would not give him any benefit as he himself had filed a Suit and in which after contest on the issues framed regarding date of birth it was held that petitioner was born on 3.11.1936." Accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with costs. Same Submission has been advanced by Mr. Devi Prasad Mishra in the present Appeal. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Mishra. In a duly constituted Suit, the date of birth of the petitioner was held to be 3rd November, 1936. Said finding is binding on the petitioner and he cannot wriggle out of the same on the purported ground that in the service record maintained by the Martin Burn Company Ltd., some other date of birth is mentioned. We are of the opinion that this Appeal is absolutely frivolous and deserves to be dismissed with costs. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the appellant to respondent Nos. 1 to 4.;