ORDER
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. Heard. Defendants are appellants, plaintiff-respondent filed Title Suit No. 35 of 1986 for declaration that he was entitled to continue in service till 20.12.1989 and further relief was sought to quash letter dated 14.1.1986 by which he was intimated to retire from service from 1.7.1986. According to plaintiff, he was born on 20.12.1929 and in support thereof extract from admission register of the school as well as admit card for appearing in matriculation examination in the year 1946 were produced. As per entry in Form B register made by the employer in the year 1960 at the time of his joining service, his date of birth was shown as 1.7.1926. The same date of birth was shown in the identify card register also. Such Form B register of Gandudih Colliery, where the plaintiff had joined in 1960, was not produced and in its place the register prepared on the basis of Form B register of Gandudih Colliery, Besseriya colliery where the plaintiff joined after transfer in 1971 was produced and marked as Ext. E. The identity card of the said colliery was marked as Ext. B. It is not in dispute that on both Exts. B and E, plaintiff’s original signatures were available. No explanation was furnished on behalf of plaintiff as to why aforesaid school admission register as well as admit card Exts. 1 and 2 were not produced either in the year 1960 or at least in the year 1971. Even if the plaintiff’s allegation that on both occasions in Gandudih Colliery and Besseriya Colliery, he was asked to sign on blank form of the register and thereafter columns of those registers were filed in be true, the plaintiff also does not dispute that his date of birth in the old Form B register of Gandudih colliery was recorded as 1.7.1926. The court below decreed the suit on the ground that evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff was far better than that of the defendants on the point of date of birth. It was also observed that entry in school register regarding date of birth was proof of age, which was maintained in regular course and there was no reason to doubt the said entry. Admitted position is that in the service record plaintiffs date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1926. Obviously the said entry was made on the basis of his own declaration, which was also duly authenticated by him at the time of his appointment. That very date of birth was mentioned in identity card. He was, accordingly, given notice (Annexure C) on 14.1.1986 that he was to retire from service from 1.7.1986. Immediately thereafter the plaintiff filed the present suit and brought on record the aforesaid extract from School admission register and admit card, Exts. 1 and 2. Normally persons at the time of appointment fail to produce certificates or documents regarding date of birth, hence they are required to affix their signatures or thumb impression in authentication of their declared age or dates of birth. On the basis of such declaration made by the employees an entry is made of his date of birth in his service record to be opened, that will amount to acceptance by the employer of such date of birth as correct. Once the employer accepts the date of birth of an employee as declared by him and allows him to enter into its service and continue on such basis, normally it is not open to such employee to claim after a long gap near about the stage of his superannuation that the date of birth declared and authenticated by him was incorrect and, therefore, the employer should correct his date of birth in his service record, according to what he claims to be true. So far as authenticity of entry of date of birth in school admission register as well as in the admit card, Exts. 1 and 2 were concerned, it could not have been relied on for correcting the date of birth recorded in the service register of the plaintiff and duly authenticated by him. In this regard reference may be made to a decision of apex Court in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar and Anr., 1995 (4) SCC 172. In my view, another reason for not directing the employer to make change in the date of birth of the plaintiff is that objection was raised by the plaintiff at a belated stage. It may fall frustration down the line resulting in causing an adverse effect on efficiency in functioning and as such the employer was justified in refusing such correction. I, therefore set aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. In the result, this appeal is allowed and plaintiff suit stands dismissed.