D.N.Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order, passed by learned Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 5467 of 2009 dated 03.08.2015, whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant for change of date of birth from 01.07.1940 (as per management) to 01.07.1950 (as per employee) was not accepted by the learned Single Judge; more particularly, when the writ petition was preferred after four long years after the retirement of this appellant on 31.07.2005. Hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is an original petitioner, who preferred W.P.(S) No. 5467 of 2009 for changing of date of birth from 01.07.1940 to 01.07.1950 mainly on the ground that Form-B, which is maintained by the respondents, prescribes the date of birth as 01.07.1950.
(3.) Looking to the contentions raised by the respondents that there is an interpolation in Form-B register. Photocopy, which has been perused and it creates a doubt as to the date of birth as there seems to be an interpolation in recording of birth date as 01.07.1950. Moreover, original Form-B register is not available at Muraidih Colliery, which is the initial place of the appointment of the original petitioner. It further appears that the whole matter has been preferred by this appellant after four years from his retirement. As per the management, date of birth is 01.07.1940. This appellant has retired on 31.07.2005. This appellant could not point out any application preferred by him prior to 31.07.2005 for correction of his birth date. Whatever correspondence is shown, from it, it can be found out that only after three years from the date of his retirement, some correspondence has been entered into, which has got no meaning at all in the eyes of law for correction of birth date. Even the writ petition has been preferred after long four years from the date of retirement. Such type of matter cannot be entertained while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, these aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. Learned Single Judge has rightly followed the ratio decidendi propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. Versus K. Thangappan and another, 2006 4 SCC 322 and State of U.P. and others Versus Gulaichi (Smt), 2003 6 SCC 483.;