ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order as contained in letter dated 8.2.2003 by which the respondents have decided to superannuate the petitioner on 30.6.2003. This writ petition was filed on 23.6.2003. 3. I am fully aware of the settled proposition of law that the dispute with regard to date of birth between the employer and the employee cannot be gone into and decided by the writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the writ Court can interfere with the impugned letter whereby petitioner has been sought to be compulsory retired w.e.f. 30.6.2004. 4. Petitioners case is that he joined the services of the respondents on 24.2.1971. On the date of joining his date of birth as recorded in the service records is 20.6.1944. The said date of birth is mentioned in each and every service documents of the petitioner maintained by the respondents. It is contended by the petitioner that in the Admit Card, Matriculation Certificate etc. the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 20.6.1944. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that ignoring all these documents the respondents have illegally issued the impugned letter superannuating the petitioner w.e.f. 30.6.2003. In support of his case the petitioner has annexed series of documents. 5. Respondents have filed their counter-affidavit disputing the date of birth of the petitioner but they have not annexed any documentary evidence in support of their contention. It is interesting to reproduce paragraph-7 of the counter- affidavit which reads as under :-- "The petitioner was appointed on 24.2.1971 and at the time of his appointment, he filled up his personal date form by disclosing his date of birth as 20.6.1944 and declaring his age as 27 years 8 months. Since he did not produce any document proof in support of his date of birth, therefore, the date of birth declared by him as 27 years 8 months was recorded in his personal file and in his service record." 6. From the statement made in paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit, as quoted hereinabove, it is clear that the petitioner disclosed his date of birth as 20.6.1944. From the statement made in paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit, as quoted hereinabove, it is clear that the petitioner disclosed his date of birth as 20.6.1944. In paragraph-14 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioners age at the time of appointment was 27 years 8 months when he had filled up the personal date form. According to them also the petitioner joined on 24.2.1971. In paragraph-15 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that in the service record of the petitioner the age of the petitioner has been shown as 27 years 8 months. 7. Curiously enough, not a single document has been annexed with the counter- affidavit much less the personal data form or service record to show that the petitioner admitted his age as 27 years 8 months at the time of appointment. On the contrary, paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit shows that the respondents admitted that in the personal data form the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 20.6.1944 declaring his age as 27 years 8 months. 8. In this view of the matter, this Court can certainly draw an adverse inference for non-production of the most important documents relied by the respondents which raises suspicion with regard to the contention of the respondents. In my view, therefore, the action of the respondents in superannuating the petitioner on 30.6.2003 is illegal and unjustified. The petitioner is entitled to continue in service till 30.6.2004 taking his date of birth as 20.6.1944. 9. With aforesaid observation, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter is quashed. The petitioner shall deemed to be continuing in service till the date of superannuation on 30.6.2004.