P. D. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is taken up for hearing by treating included in the day's cause list. ( 2 ) THE appellant (Writ petitioner), who is illiterate, was originally employee of Siduli Colliery. Upon the nationalisation of Coal Mil aid Colliery was placed under the control of Eastern Coal Fields which is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. On May 13, 1987, the appellant was served with an excerpt from his service record which, inter alia, showed that he was thirty seven years of age in 1966. The appellant rejected to his age recorded as such and stated that he was forty-five years of age in 1987 i. e. twenty-four years of age in 1966. The case of the appellant was referred to the Determination Committee which, however affirmed the date of birth mentioned in the service record. On the basis of the age recorded in the service record the appellant was retired on July 1, 1989. Meanwhile, however, the Writ Petition out of which the present appeal arises was instituted and rejected by the judgment under appeal on May 3, 1989. Hence the present appeal. ( 3 ) IT may be stated at the outset that the writ petition was ex parte since none appeared on behalf of the appellant when the matter was taken up for hearing. The trial Court rejected the Writ petition on merits holding, inter alia, that the matter having been referred to the Age Determination Committee and the report of the said Committee being against the appellant, there was no ground to hold otherwise and to accept the contention of the appellant with regard to his correct date of birth. ( 4 ) WE have seen the original record which was produced for our perusal sat by the concerned respondent. The service record, excerpts whereof were served on the appellant and which was seen by us, is stated to have been prepared solely on the basis of the record of the original employer (Siduli Colliery) by the Eastern Coal Fields Limited. However, the original record is not available for our perusal since the Eastern Coal Fields Limited itself, according to the counsel, is not in possession thereof. The appellant was apparently not associated with the preparation of the record. It does not bear the endorsement of approval or concurrence of the appellant. However, the original record is not available for our perusal since the Eastern Coal Fields Limited itself, according to the counsel, is not in possession thereof. The appellant was apparently not associated with the preparation of the record. It does not bear the endorsement of approval or concurrence of the appellant. The appellant objected to the determination of his age immediately after the service of the relevant excerpt. Undoubtedly, his, case was referred and decided by the Age Determination Committee. Be it stated that according to the procedure prescribed by the management for the determination/verification of age of employees, a copy whereof was shown to us, to the requirement of referring cases to the Age Determination Committee arises in respect of certain existing employees when there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the management and the management is satisfied on the merits. of the case of where there is a variation in the age recorded in the records of specified category. For determination of age, the Age Determination Committee is required to consider the evidences available with the management and/ or adduced before it by the employee concerned. The record of the Age Determination Committee, which was also seen by us does not show however, that any opportunity was given to the appellant to produce the relevant evidence, if any, in his possession with regard to his age. Although the Age Assessment Committee consists, inter alia, of the Medical Officer-in-Charge- of the area, the record does not show that any medical examination was conducted in order to determine the age of the appellant, especially when the difference in the age as determined by the employer and as claimed by the employee is substantial. ( 5 ) UNDER the circumstances aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the interests of justice and principles of fair play require that the age of the appellant should be determined by a Medical consisting, inter alia, of an Orthopaedic Surgeon, who is not in the employment of Eastern Coal. Fields Limited, constituted by and at the cost of the Eastern Coal Fields Limited, within a period of four weeks from date. Fields Limited, constituted by and at the cost of the Eastern Coal Fields Limited, within a period of four weeks from date. The Medical Board will determine the age of the appellant after taking into consideration the evidence if any, produced by the appellant before the management or which he may produce before such Board as to his correct age and in accordance with standards laid down by the medical sciences and recognised by the medical jurisprudence. The determination accordingly made will be binding on the parties, that is, the rights of the parties shall be governed by such determination and the benefits and privileges, if any, which accrue to the appellant on the basis of such determination shall be granted to him soonest thereafter. The Medical Board win be required to give its opinion within a period of six weeks from date. Order accordingly. ( 6 ) MR. Mallick, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that a precise procedure; has been prescribed for determination of the age of an employee and it would not be proper to depart therefrom and to give a special treatment to the appellant. We are pot impressed by the argument. The Court having found on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the substantial difference in age determined by the management and the appellant's claim in that regard that method to determine the age would be to seek the opinion of body, there is nothing to prevent a direction of that nature being issued. Be it stated that even according to the relevant procedure prescribed by the management cases can be referred to the Apex Medical Board determination of age when there is a glaring disparity between the recorded and the apparent age upon the satisfaction of the Age Assessment Committee. Therefore, the constitution of a Medical Board under certain circumstances is envisaged even as per the procedure. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in terms of the foregoing order. ( 8 ) NO separate order is required to be passed on the stay application which too stands disposed of in the light of the foregoing order. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. ( 9 ) AN application for stay of this order made on behalf of the respondents is rejected. Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. , I agree. Appeal allowed.