JUDGMENT Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The substantial question of law framed for answer in this case are as follows :-- "I. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was maintainable? "II. Whether the lower appellate Court could have ignored the date of birth recorded in the service book of the plaintiff at the time of his entry into service specially in view of the provisions of the certified standing orders applicable to the appellants undertaking? 2. At the time of hearing, it is fairly admitted by both the parties that the framed substantial question of law No. 1 is not required to be answered because it was never an issue before either of the Court i.e. trial and appellate Courts. 3. The facts out of which the question has arisen are shortly that the plaintiff, who had applied for the post of Beldar and who, at the time of his application, had studied upto Class VI, had declared his age to be 24 years, but no document in support thereof was produced by him. Thereafter, he was appointed on 26.2.1957 after the report of the Departmental Doctor, who declared his age to be 25 years. Thereafter, the service sheet was prepared on the basis of the medical certificate and his date of birth recorded therein was 4.3.1932, as per the age estimated by the doctor. Thereafter it appears that the plaintiff passed his Matriculation Examination in the year 1969 as a private candidate and the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate was 1.3.1936. The plaintiff in the year 1985 made a representation for alteration of his date of birth as per the Matriculation Certificate. The appellant, corporation, referring to the standing order No. 7-A, 7-B and 7-C, disallowed the prayer of the plaintiff made in the representations from time to time and ultimately the plaintiff filed a Title Suit No. 29/1990 in the Court of Munsif, 1st, Dhanbad, challenging his date of birth as recorded in the service book and consequently also challenging his date of superannuation. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that his date of birth as 4.3.1932, then Title Appeal No. 64/1992 was filed and the learned appellate Court held that the employee had been prematurely retired on 31.3.1990 instead of 31.1.1991. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that his date of birth as 4.3.1932, then Title Appeal No. 64/1992 was filed and the learned appellate Court held that the employee had been prematurely retired on 31.3.1990 instead of 31.1.1991. 4. The defendants case was that the employee had not submitted any document at the time of his initial appointment; so whatever came from the Doctor was supposed to be the real age of the plaintiff and on the basis of the age declared by the Doctor, the date of birth of the plaintiff was 4.3.1932 and the plaintiff was also informed accordingly and considering his date of birth aforesaid, the plaintiff superannuated on 1.1.1986 and the plaintiff was informed of it much prior to his superannuation. 5. The learned appellate Court came to a finding that as the Medical Officer has not ascertained the age on any scientific basis, the age declared by the plaintiff should have been taken for computing his date of birth and also for the date of his superannuation; consequently, the learned appellate Court held that the date of retirement of the plaintiff should have been 31.1.1991 instead of 31.3.1990. Thus, it held that the plaintiff had been prematurely retired. 6. The answer to the question framed depends much on the Standing Order that has been incorporated in the impugned judgment of the appellate Court, which reads as follows :-- "7-B.--An employee who is unable to produce any of the above documents, shall state his age and made a written declaration that the age as stated by him is correct. Such employee shall be sent to the Corporations authorized Medical Officer, free of cost for examination and his opinion as to the employees age shall be binding on the employee." 7. This standing order nevertheless should be read in context of the age determination of such employees who do not produce any document in proof of their age. In this case, as no document has been produced, he had, under the rule, to be sent to the Medical Officer for his examination and opinion as to the employees age. The opinion with regard to the age has to be dependent on examination for the purpose arriving at such opinion. If no examination is conducted and the opinion is given merely on physical appearance, then the opinion is void of any examination. The opinion with regard to the age has to be dependent on examination for the purpose arriving at such opinion. If no examination is conducted and the opinion is given merely on physical appearance, then the opinion is void of any examination. The fitness and age are two different things. In the case in hand, no such examination appears to have been done. In such circumstances, the opinion of the Doctor is without any examination. 8. In the circumstances, the answer to the question is that if the opinion is without any examination, then that opinion has no meaning in law and is not in conformity with the standing order (supra). In the aforesaid circumstances, the conclusion is that the learned Appellate Court rightly ignored the date of birth recorded in the service, book, which was based on the declaration of age made by the Doctor without any scientific examination and not on the date of birth as coming in the declaration of the plaintiff. Thus, the question is answered accordingly, I find no merit in this appeal and consequently it is dismissed. Salary, if any, deposited in this case with the Registrar of the Court be paid to the appellant on verification.