Order I.A. No. 175 of 2005 By the Court. - Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 175 of 2005 seeking a direction for payment of the retiral dues as in the meanwhile the petitioner has retired from service on 3.1.7.2004. 2. In view of this interlocutory application, respondents are liable to release the admitted dues to the petitioner on his retirement. 3. I.A. stands disposed of. W.P. No. 87 of 2004 4. Petitioner is an employee of the respondent-Board. It is alleged that there was a dispute with regard to the date of birth of a large number of employees in view of certain aberrations in the service record maintained by the Board. 5. Bihar Rajya Vidyut Mazdoor Union of which, the petitioner is one of the members preferred writ petition being CWJC No. 290 of 2001 before this Court seeking a direction for examination/verification of their respective date of births. This writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 20th of November, 2001, whereby the writ court passed the following directions- "(i) The employees of the petitioner-Union against whom the notices (annexure 1 series) have been issued, shall submit their respective 'documentary evidences in support of their age to respondent No. 4 within two weeks from today. (ii) On receipt of papers respondent No. 4 or other appropriate authority shall examine all the documents that may be furnished by the employees in support of their age and the authority, thereafter shall take a decision in accordance with law. (iii) If the authority will not be satisfied with the documents furnished by the employees, then the authority may ask such employees to undergo medical examination. After medical examination, the authority shall take final decision with regard to the age of the concerned employees and communicate such decision within a week. (iv) If the employees or any of them is/are not satisfied with the decision, that may be taken by the respondent-authority with regard to his/ their age, he/they shall be at liberty to move the civil court for determination of age. (v) Till final decision with regard to age of the employees is taken by the respondent-authority in the manner aforesaid, the operation of annexure 1 series shall remain stayed.” 6. The Union preferred a Letters Patent Appeal registered as LPA No. 20 of 2002. (v) Till final decision with regard to age of the employees is taken by the respondent-authority in the manner aforesaid, the operation of annexure 1 series shall remain stayed.” 6. The Union preferred a Letters Patent Appeal registered as LPA No. 20 of 2002. The Hon'ble Division Bench modified the directions of the writ court by constituting a one person Tribunal/Authority. The relevant part of the averments of the Division Bench is noticed hereunder: “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties an agreed arrangement has emerged whereby, in modification of the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2001, it has been agreed upon between the parties that, instead of submitting the documents etc. to the respondents, as directed in the aforesaid impugned judgment, the documents etc. shall be submitted before Mrs. Shakuntala Sinha, presently Senior Legal Advisor, Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Mrs. Shakuntala Sinha is accordingly, appointed as the One Person Tribunal/Authority to examine, scrutinize and consider the cases of all workmen, who had been issued the impugned notices by the respondents with respect to the disputed dates of birth and for undergoing Medical Examinations.” 7. Consequent upon the directions of the Division Bench, one man Committee as suggested by the Court was appointed. The Committee has submitted its Report dated 6th of August, 2003. This Report is under challenge in the present petition, particularly the findings recorded by the one man Tribunal in respect to the date of birth of the petitioner. The Tribunal has held that the date of birth recorded in the service record is the correct date of birth of the petitioner in absence of any other evidence produced by the parties. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondents withheld the Medical Certificate/Report of the Medical Board in respect to the determination of the age of the petitioner though petitioner was referred to the Medical Board and the respondents obtained the Report. Based upon these allegations, petitioner has again moved this Court challenging the Report. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. In the earlier writ petition, CWJC No. 290 of 2001, five directions were issued by the Writ Court. Under direction No.4, respondents were asked to examine the record and determine the age and if any party is aggrieved of the Report, he was granted liberty to approach the civil court to challenge the findings. 10. In the earlier writ petition, CWJC No. 290 of 2001, five directions were issued by the Writ Court. Under direction No.4, respondents were asked to examine the record and determine the age and if any party is aggrieved of the Report, he was granted liberty to approach the civil court to challenge the findings. This order passed by the writ court dated 20th of November, 2001 was modified by the LPA Bench only to the extent that instead of the matter being determined by the respondents, a Committee/Tribunal was constituted by the Court to examine, scrutinize and determine the date of birth of the employees. As far the other directions are concerned, the same were not interfered. The direction, whereby the petitioners were allowed to move the civil court, if dissatisfied with the Report has remained intact. 11. In view of the directions of the writ court in the order dated 20th of November, 2001 this writ petition assailing the findings of the Tribunal is not maintainable. However, petitioner is at liberty to move the civil court in accordance with the directions as contained in the order dated 20th of November, 2001. This writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.