Judgment : The petitioner in this application, under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 5th April, 1972, whereby he was communicated that the Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, had determined that he was born on 1st April, 1912, and not on 1st April, 1919, as claimed by the petitioner. In order to appreciate the controversy in this case, it is necessary to refer to the facts briefly. The petitioner was originally appointed in the East Bengal Railway on the 1st November, 1937. After partition of India he opted for service in India and was absorved as a labourer in the Eastern Railway at Andul. The Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Assansol, by his letter dated 18th March 1967, informed the petitioner that he had decided that the petitioner should be retired from service. He accordingly gave notice of three months with effect from 1st April, 1967, that on the expiry of the said period the petitioner would cease to be in Railway service. The petitioner made representation to the respondents and contended that he was born in the year 1919 and it had been so recorded in the original service sheet prepared by the East Bengal Railway which was subsequently brought to the office of the Eastern Railway when the petitioner had opted for service in India. The Administration replied that his date of birth as recorded in the service record tallied with the declaration given by him when the petitioner came to India after partition. Therefore, his age had been correctly determined and the notice of retirement, was properly served. It was further stated on behalf of the respondents that the first page of the original service record which had been received from Pakistan and in which, according to the Administration, it was recorded that the petitioner was born in 1912 was found missing from 9th November, 1957 after the same was verified with regard to the continuity of the service record. There is, however, no material to determine as to the exact time when the first page of the service sheet was re-paged or reconstructed. There is, however, no material to determine as to the exact time when the first page of the service sheet was re-paged or reconstructed. When the previous orders had been passed, that is to say, the order dated 18th March, 1967 and 27th June, 1967 determining the date of birth of the petitioner in 1912 and asking him to retire after the period of the notice, the petitioner challenged the same in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a Rule Nisi, being Civil Rule No. 4446(W) of 1968. The said matter came up for hearing before Chittatosh Mookherjee, J. and by a judgment delivered and order passed on 29th November, 1971, the learned Judge set aside the said impugned orders and observed that the petitioner was not given any hearing or opportunity to make any representation before his age was determined or the service record reconstructed. The learned Judge observed that the respondents were bound to dispose the material on record on the basis of which they had decided to reconstruct the first page of the service record and to determine that the date of birth of the petitioner was 1st July, 1912 and not 1919. The petitioner, according to the learned Judge, was entitled to produce all his evidence before reconstruction of his service sheet and determination of his date of birth. The learned Judge accordingly directed the respondents to reconstruct the service sheet and determine the date of birth of the petitioner and the date of retirement after giving the petitioner a bearing within a period of four months from the date of decision of the said rule. 2. It appears that thereafter pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the High Court, a notice was given on the 10th March, 1972, by the Chief Divisional Personnel Officer asking him to appear before the Chief Personnel Officer on the 29th March, 1972 for the aforesaid purpose. 2. It appears that thereafter pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the High Court, a notice was given on the 10th March, 1972, by the Chief Divisional Personnel Officer asking him to appear before the Chief Personnel Officer on the 29th March, 1972 for the aforesaid purpose. On receipt of the aforesaid notice of the 14th March, 1972, the petitioner wrote back stating that the petitioner was an Illiterate workman and should be granted the facility of having the assistance of another Railway employee to assist him in the interview and he named one Shri, B. R. Tanti and requested the Railway authorities to allow Sri Tanti to accompany and assist the petitioner at the said hearing and for this purpose facilities might be given by the respondents. He was not given such facilities and the petitioner did not have the assistance of Shri Tanti. The petitioner had put the said fact on record dated 29th March, 1972. Thereafter on 22nd March, 1972, the Chief Personnel Officer passed the impugned order and determined that the petitioner was born on the 1st July, 1912. In the said order he observed, inter alia, as follows : "Sri Mahipat could not produce before me any document. All what he stated was that when he was appointed in the E.B. Railway in November, 1937 he informed the clerk concerned that he was 18 years old. At this stage the declaration given by him (kept in the Service Record at page 11) that he was 36 years old on 7.5.1948 when he came to India after giving his option from the then East Pakistan, was shown to him. It was explained to him that in accordance with this declaration his year of birth was 1912'. He was also shown the seniority list which was published in 1955 in which his name appeared in Sl. No. 146 and that against his name, his year of birth was recorded at 1912'. Further Sri Mahipat was also shown two loan applications dated 20-7-1954 and 30-3-1957 which he submitted to E.I. Rly., E.C. C.S. in which also his year of birth was recorded as 1918'. Sri Mahipat could not say anything against these records nor could he establish anything otherwise that his year of birth was not 1912. Further Sri Mahipat was also shown two loan applications dated 20-7-1954 and 30-3-1957 which he submitted to E.I. Rly., E.C. C.S. in which also his year of birth was recorded as 1918'. Sri Mahipat could not say anything against these records nor could he establish anything otherwise that his year of birth was not 1912. After considering all the relevant documents as well as his statement given before me, I have come to the decision that the year of birth of Sri Mahipat is 1912. The date of retirement will also accordingly follow as laid down in the Rules for Railway servants laid down by Railway Board." Thereafter the petitioner was communicated the aforesaid order by the impugned letter as indicated before. 3. The question is, whether in passing the order on the 22nd March, 1972, by the Chief Personnel Officer there was violation of the principles of natural justice or whether the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity. The fact that the petitioner is an illiterate workman is not disputed. The fact that the declaration and the other documents upon which the respondents sought to rely were in English, is also not disputed. It is not also disputed that before the hearing no copy of the declaration or of the alleged loan application or of the seniority list was given to the petitioner. In the notice dated 10th March, 1972, the petitioner was not told as to against which evidence was the petitioner required bring satisfactory evidence or explanation. Furthermore, the petitioner was not given the assistance of helper by means of another worker. 4. Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner was, however, shown, all the documents upon which the respondents relied and the Chief Personnel Officer passed his order. It was further contended that before the Chief Personnel Officer recorded his decision, the Chief Personnel Officer showed these documents upon which reliance was placed to the petitioner and asked for his explanation. It is recorded that the petitioner could not give any explanation. It was further contended that this was not a case of punishment, therefore, the principle where the assistance of a person was in law required or the applicability of the rule requiring that the Railway should consider giving legal assistance to an accused did not arise. It was an interview by a Chief Personnel Officer of a workman working under him. It was an interview by a Chief Personnel Officer of a workman working under him. In respect of such interview certain questions have to be determined. No question arose of affording opportunity by allowing somebody else to help the petitioner. Therefore, it was submitted that there was not only no compliance with the order of Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. but also with the principles of natural justice. 5. Whether in a particular case before retirement a question of this nature, reasonable opportunity, was given or whether a person was denied such an opportunity depends upon the facts of each case. After all in this case we are involved with the question of a determination of the case of a workman concerned, Here, admittedly the original first page of the service record was not available. Secondly, the person concerned was an illiterate person and he was having an interview with a superior officer of such status as of a Chief Personnel Officer on such a vital question which affected his future. It further appears that in passing the impugned order reliance was placed by the Chief Personnel Officer on various documents in respect of which on the spot explanation was asked for from the petitioner. In my opinion, in such a case, in view of the directions of Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. and in view of the circumstances of the case, the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity in defending himself arid as such there was violation of the principles of natural justice. Though the facts were entirely different the principles of the decision in the case of State of Orissa & Ors v. Dr. Binapani Dei & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1269 , are also applicable to this case. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order dated 22nd March, 1972, which is Annexure 'X' to the affidavit-in- opposition and the order contained in the letter dated 5th April, 1972, which is Annexure 'D' to the petition. Binapani Dei & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1269 , are also applicable to this case. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order dated 22nd March, 1972, which is Annexure 'X' to the affidavit-in- opposition and the order contained in the letter dated 5th April, 1972, which is Annexure 'D' to the petition. I direct that the Chief Personnel Officer should determine the question of age of the petitioner again within a period of eight weeks from this date after giving the petitioner copies of the documents upon which action is proposed against the petitioner and upon which the respondents seek to rely in arriving at the age of the petitioner and after affording the petitioner, if the petitioner so desires, the help of another workman to help him in the interview as he is an illiterate person. 6. The Rule is made absolute. Let appropriate Writs issue accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.