ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. An application (I.A. No. 610 of 2008) has been filed by the petitioner praying for fixing an early date of hearing. 2. Since the respondents have already appeared and filed their counter affidavit, the matter is heard on merit at this stage itself and is being disposed of finally by this order. No separate order need be passed in the interlocutory application. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order dated 31.10.2005 passed by the respondents, whereby the petitioner was informed about his date of superannuation as 31.10.2005. 4. It has been stated that the petitioner is due to retire on 31.10.2010 as per the entry recorded in Form B register. But by the impugned letter, the date of his retirement has been shifted five years back to the petitioner's prejudice without giving him any notice or opportunity of hearing. It has been stated that acting upon the said letter, the respondents forced the petitioner to retire prematurely w.e.f. 31.10.2005. The respondents, thereafter, did not allow the petitioner to work in the Company. 5. According to the petitioner, the impugned letter and action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. Earlier, the petitioner's date of birth was wrongly recorded as 4.4.1945, which was not in accordance with the entry of date of birth in his Matriculation Certificate, though the petitioner had passed matriculation before joining his service. In the certificate, his date of birth is recorded as 13.2.1950. 7. The petitioner represented under the provisions of Implementation Instruction and requested for correction of date of birth on the basis of the matriculation certificate. 8. His date of birth was corrected on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate. In Form B register, the date 4.4.1945 was encircled and corrected date 13.2.1950 was entered outside the circle with an endorsement 'on the basis of the date of birth as per the matriculation certificate. 9. The respondents made basis of the encircled date of birth as 4.4.1945, while issuing the impugned letter, ignoring the corrected date of birth, which is in accordance with the provisions of Implementation Instruction. 10. The action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal and the impugned order is whimsical and vitiated. 9. The respondents made basis of the encircled date of birth as 4.4.1945, while issuing the impugned letter, ignoring the corrected date of birth, which is in accordance with the provisions of Implementation Instruction. 10. The action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal and the impugned order is whimsical and vitiated. The petitioner is entitled to remain in service till 31.10.2010, according to his date of birth recorded in Form B register based on the entry recorded in matriculation certificate. 11. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents disputing the petitioner's claim. It has been stated, inter alia, that at the time of entry in the employment, the petitioner's date of birth was recorded to his notice and knowledge as 4.4.1945. Subsequently, another date of birth as 13.2.1950 was entered in the Form B register. The matter is still under enquiry as to who made subsequent entry of petitioner's date of birth as 13.2.1950. The officials have relied upon the initial entry in Form B register, which was based on medical examination report. According to that entry, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2005. He has been thus rightly superannuated in accordance with the prescribed provisions of the Company. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in issuing the impugned order/letter of superannuation to the petitioner. 12. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. 13. The respondents with their counter affidavit has enclosed a Xerox copy of Form B register. On perusal of the said document, it is evident that the age of the petitioner was earlier entered as 4.4.1945. But the said entry has been encircled and a fresh entry outside the circle has been made the date of birth as 13.2.1950 on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate'. 14. The petitioner, by way of interlocutory application, has brought on record a Xerox copy of the original matriculation certificate. On perusal of the said certificate (Annexure-3), it is evident that his date of birth, in the matriculation certificate, is 13.2.1950. It is evident from the above that the entry made in Form B register as 13.2.1950 is not without any basis. Rather the same is based on the entry made in the matriculation certificate. It has been admitted that the petitioner had passed matriculation before entry in the service. 15. It is evident from the above that the entry made in Form B register as 13.2.1950 is not without any basis. Rather the same is based on the entry made in the matriculation certificate. It has been admitted that the petitioner had passed matriculation before entry in the service. 15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is clear provision in Implementation Instruction (I.I.) No. 76(A)(i) issued under the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement for determination of age of an employee I.I. No. 76 provides that in the case of appointees, who passed matriculation, the date of birth recorded in the certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth. Since the petitioner had passed his matriculation before entry in the service, the date of birth recorded in Form B register was subsequently corrected under that provision on the basis of the entry of the date of birth made in the matriculation certificate. 16. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when there are two entries according to the respondents, any action on the basis of the entry, which is prejudicial to the petitioner, must be in accordance with the procedure established by law and after following the requirements of the principle of natural justice. Learned Counsel submitted that no notice or opportunity of hearing/representation was given to the petitioner before choosing the initial entry of date of birth and ignoring the corrected entry of the date of birth in the statutory Form B register. The respondents had asked the petitioner to produce his matriculation certificate by letter dated 19.9.2005. He had produced the certificate on 21.9.2005. In spite of the same, the respondents issued the impugned letter forcing the petitioner to retire prematurely w.e.f. 31.10.2005. 17. Mr. A. Sen learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the respondents have acted upon the initial entry made in the Form B register. There was no authenticity so far as the subsequent entry is concerned. The said letter was issued on the basis of the internal guideline dated 9.6.1999, which, inter alia, provides that the initial declaration, supported by documentary proof, made at the time of joining the company or in absence of documentary evidence, age ascertained by medical examination only are acceptable for the purpose of determination of age. The said letter was issued on the basis of the internal guideline dated 9.6.1999, which, inter alia, provides that the initial declaration, supported by documentary proof, made at the time of joining the company or in absence of documentary evidence, age ascertained by medical examination only are acceptable for the purpose of determination of age. The subsequent correction of date of birth is not permissible even according to the qualification acquired prior to joining, if the certificate was not submitted at the time of initial appointment. 18. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the correction has been made in the petitioner's date of birth, recorded in Form B register. The question arises as to whether the respondents themselves can decide to act on the initial entry ignoring the corrected entry in the date of birth, which is based on the entry in matriculation certificate. The provisions of Implementation Instruction clearly provides for recording/correcting date of birth on the basis of the entry made in the matriculation certificate, if the employee is matriculate before his appointment. The petitioner did matriculation in 1967. He was appointed on 6.4.1970. The matriculation certificate was prior to his date of appointment. The entry of his date of birth as 13.2.1950 in the Form B matches with the date of birth in the matriculation certificate. The respondents cannot ignore the said entry and superannuate the petitioner on the basis of the earlier entry, which was encircled in Form B register after making correction, without giving him prior notice and opportunity of representation. 19. Admittedly, the petitioner was not given any prior notice or opportunity of hearing or representation before taking the said decision prejudicial to the petitioner. The said letter informing premature date of petitioner's retirement dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure-2) is arbitrary, vitiated and violative of principle of natural justice. The same is, hereby, quashed. This writ petition is allowed. Consequently, I.A. No. 610 of 2008 is also disposed of. The petitioner, if superannuated on the basis of the said letter, shall be reinstated forthwith and shall be allowed to remain in service until he attains the age of superannuation according to the entry made on the basis of the matriculation certificate as 13.2.1950 or any contrary order is passed by following the procedure established by law. The petitioner, if superannuated on the basis of the said letter, shall be reinstated forthwith and shall be allowed to remain in service until he attains the age of superannuation according to the entry made on the basis of the matriculation certificate as 13.2.1950 or any contrary order is passed by following the procedure established by law. The petitioner's service shall be counted continuously without any break for the purpose of other consequential benefits, including the payment of his salary and other benefits. The arrears of salary shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petition allowed.