JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Respondent, who is now dead and has been substituted by his heirs vide order dated 29.4.2010. 2. The instant first appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.9.2004 and decree dated 1.10.2004 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Jaiswal, Sub Judge-VI, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 131 of 2003, whereby learned trial court was pleased to decree the suit by holding that the superannuation of the plaintiff-respondent is premature and the order of superannuation issued by the Project Officer, Patherdih Coal Washery cannot be treated to be proper and the same was set aside. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. that the plaintiff- Nitya Nand Singh was appointed as semi skilled operator in Patherdih Coal Washery on 11.1.1965 and at the time of joining the age of the respondent- plaintiff was assessed by the doctor, who examined him, as 24 years. Respondent- plaintiff also signed on the same. The said medical report has been proved as Ext.B and signature of the Defendant is marked as Ext.C in the court and hence his date of birth was assessed to be 7.1.1941, since he was examined on 7.1.1965. Accordingly, the impugned notice was issued stating therein that the plaintiff- deceased, Nitya Nand Singh is to retire on 31.1.2001 and accordingly, he was asked to make his papers ready for retiremental benefits. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that no document for proof of age was filed by the respondent- plaintiff at the time of joining of service and as such after serving for about 30 years at the time of retirement he cannot raise a dispute with regard to the age. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff- respondent is bad in law and fit to be set aside. The appellant has relied upon decisions reported in "1994 (supp) (1) 155", and State of Orissa and others Vs. Ramanath Patnaik, AIR 1997 SC 2452 ". 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- plaintiff 's heirs has submitted that Plaintiff- respondent has filed school leaving certificate giving the age to be 1.1.1943 and accordingly, the date of birth of plaintiff was recorded in the register of BCCL as 1.1.1943. Ramanath Patnaik, AIR 1997 SC 2452 ". 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- plaintiff 's heirs has submitted that Plaintiff- respondent has filed school leaving certificate giving the age to be 1.1.1943 and accordingly, the date of birth of plaintiff was recorded in the register of BCCL as 1.1.1943. The company issued identity card in the year 1972 in which his date of birth was shown as 1.1.1943. Subsequently, BCCL issued another Identity Card in 1992 in which also his age was shown as 1.1.1943. The aforesaid identity Card has been marked as Ext. 1 and 1/1 and even the appellant- defendant witnesses have accepted that the date of birth of the respondent- plaintiff has been recorded as 1.11.1943 in the retirement register and as such, learned trial court has rightly decreed the suit and declared the notice of superannuation , marked ext.2 is bad in law and not operative. The respondent has also relied upon the decision repotted in "2007 (3), J.C.R. 681". 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that the deceased-plaintiff- respondent, Nitya Nand Singh filed a title suit in the court of Sub Judge-VI, Dhanbad which was registered as Title Suit No. 131 of 2003. The plaintiff stated that he joined his service under Steel Authority of India Limited(SAIL) on 11.1.1965 as semi skilled production pump operator at Pathardih Coal Washery and at the time of joining of service he had declared his age as 22 years 10 days and his date of birth was recorded as 1.1.1943 in the service record. The plaintiff stated that the defendant issued two identity cards one in the year 1972 and another in the year 1992 and in both the identity cards his date of birth was recorded as 1.1.1943. It is submitted that at the time of his joining he was asked to submit his certificate in proof of his age and he submitted school leaving certificate of class-9th issued by Public High School, Barhanuia (Munger) dated 3.7.1960. In the school leaving certificate his date of birth was recorded as 1.1.1943. Apart from that in Form-5, Provident Fund, Gratuity and other records of the organization, the date of birth of the plaintiff is necessary to be recorded by the organization. It is submitted that subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Charge man. In the school leaving certificate his date of birth was recorded as 1.1.1943. Apart from that in Form-5, Provident Fund, Gratuity and other records of the organization, the date of birth of the plaintiff is necessary to be recorded by the organization. It is submitted that subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Charge man. Subsequently, the Patherdih Coal Washery and other connected establishment was transferred to BCCL by the SAIL with effect from 1.10.1983 and as such, the plaintiff became the employee of BCCL. At the time of transfer of his employer, he opted for the service condition of SAIL, hence, service condition of SAIL with regard to rules, circular and policy decision of SAIL continuing. It is stated that suddenly the plaintiff received a letter from the BCCL dated 23.1] .2000 issued under the signature of Defendant No. 5, Project Officer, Patherdih Coal Washery stating therein that he is going to attain the age of superannuation of 60 years on 1.1.2001 and hence, he will retire on 31.1.2001 and he will be entitled to retiremental benefit as per the rule of the company. It is stated that he immediately made representation stating that the date of birth in service record is 1.1.1943 and he will retire on 3L1.2003, but no reply was given by the Defendant No. 5. Then he made another representation on 4.1.2001. Subsequently, he filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 1984 of 2002 before the Hon'ble High Court for quashing the office order dated 23.11.2000 issued by Defendant No. 5. The writ application was disposed of with a direction to the BCCL for disposal of the representation filed by the plaintiff- respondent within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In compliance of the said order of the High Court, with certified copy of the order, the plaintiff filed another representation before the Defendant No. 5 on 5,4.2002 which was rejected on the ground that on the date of joining in the year 1965 his age was assessed as 24 years. The plaintiff then filed, another writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court being W.P.(S) 4973 of 2002 challenging his superannuation order dated 23.11.2000. The plaintiff then filed, another writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court being W.P.(S) 4973 of 2002 challenging his superannuation order dated 23.11.2000. The Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 23.7.2003 again gave a opinion that the assessment of the date of birth cannot be decided in a Writ petition and again directed BCCL to consider the representation, otherwise, directed the plaintiff to take redressal from the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the Title Suit with a prayer that a declaration may be passed that his date of birth is 1.1.1943 and hence he shall be deemed to continue in the service till he attains the date of superannuation i.e. 31.1.2003 with further declaration that order of superannuation dated 23.11.000 passed by defendant No. 5 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant appeared in the suit and filed his written statement stating that at the time of appointment as semi skilled operator on 22.12.1964 the plaintiff had only filed three documents i) Declaration certificate of Marriage dated 5.1.1965 ii) Character certificate dated 8.1.1965 given by Superintendent, Mandal kara, Dhanbad iii) Character certificate dated 6.1.1965 issued by the Chairman, Dhanbad Municipality, He was directed to appear before the Assistant Surgeon, Patherdih Coal Washery on 6.1.1965 for his medical examination for physical fitness and in the said examination he was found fit and age was assessed as 24 years. The plaintiff signed on the said medical report. Accordingly, the Project Officer, Defendant No. 5 on 23.11.2000 issued retiremental notice stating that he will retire on 31.1.2001. It is submitted that he was rightly superannuated on 31.1.2001. It is submitted by the defendant- company that the employee, Nitya Nand Singh, since deceased, after 7 months of his retirement on 25th August, 2001 claimed on the basis of school leaving certificate dated 3.2.1960 that his date of birth is 1.1.1943. This certificate was not produced at the time of joining of service of the company. In pursuance to the order of the High Court passed in W.P. (S) 1984 of 2002 his representation was heard and disposed of. Subsequently, L.P.A No. 535 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiff had taken up the dispute of age at the fag end of his career which is not maintainable. He has accepted the date of retirement and got all retiremental dues like, provident fund, gratuity. Subsequently, L.P.A No. 535 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiff had taken up the dispute of age at the fag end of his career which is not maintainable. He has accepted the date of retirement and got all retiremental dues like, provident fund, gratuity. The medical report assessed his age as 24 years on 7.1.1965 which was signed and accepted by the plaintiff - workman and as such he cannot now say that his date of birth is different on the basis of the school leaving certificate which was not produced at that time. 6. It appears that in course of trial the plaintiff-respondent has examined himself as P.W.I. He has stated in his evidence that his date of birth is 1.1.1943 recorded in his school leaving certificate of Public High School, Barhanuia (Munger) dated 3.7.1960. He also stated that in 1965 when he was appointed by SAIL as semi skilled operator at Patherdih Coal Washery, then he had produced the said certificate and accordingly, in his service record his date of birth was entered as 1.1.1943. Subsequently, in the year 1972 Identity Card was issued to him by SAIL marked as Ext.1 showing his date of birth as 1.1.1943. Subsequently, in 1983 Patherdih Coal Washery was transferred with all its ancillary to BCCL and again the BCCL in 1992 issued Identity Card showing his date of birth as 1.1.1943, marked as Ext.1/1. Since, as per the service condition he would retire at the age of 60, he would reach the age of superannuation on 31.1.2003. He has stated that on 23.11.2000, Defendant No. 5, Project Officer of Patherdih Coal Washery wrongly issued letter that he has completed the age of superannuation on 30.1.2001 and he will retire on 31.1.2001. The aforesaid letter was marked as ext.2. He has stated that according to his date of birth as recorded in his service book and school leaving certificate, he will retire on 31.1.2003. He had made representation to this effect to the Project Officer which was marked ext. 3. He again made another representation to the Chief General Manager of Washery, which was marked as Ext.3/1. He has stated that he was wrongly retire on 31.1.2001 .He had given lawyers notice also to the company. He had made representation to this effect to the Project Officer which was marked ext. 3. He again made another representation to the Chief General Manager of Washery, which was marked as Ext.3/1. He has stated that he was wrongly retire on 31.1.2001 .He had given lawyers notice also to the company. He had filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court he filed representation to the company which was subsequently, rejected. In his cross examination he admitted that he was medically examined on 6.1.1961 and the medical report was produced before him which was accepted and it was marked Ext.B. He also admitted his signature dated 7.1.1965 on the report where in his age has been registered as Ext.C. He had admitted that after retirement he has taken his provident fund money from his company and also written for recovery of his gratuity money. 7. It is also important to note that the Defendant- company also examined only one witness i.e. D.W.1, Basudeo Singh, who has stated that the employee, plaintiff- Nitya Nand Singh was permanent employee of Patherdih Coal Washery and he was appointed on 11.1.1965 as semi skilled operator as per the appointment letter bearing No. WM/6(17)/64/1299 dated 22.12.1964. He was sent for medical examination for fitness. The medical examination report, which is marked as Ext.B has recorded his age as 24 years on 7.1.1965 which was signed by the employee Nitya Nand Singh marked as Ext.C. He has stated that at the time of joining, Nitya Nand Singh had filed only two documents at the time of joining. One is the declaration certificate of the marriage dated 5.1.1965 and second is the character certificate dated 6.1.1965 and 8.1.1965. He has stated that on the basis of his age assessed in the medical report on 28.11.2000 registered notice was issued by the Project Manager, Patherdih Coal Washery stating that he will retire with effect from 31.1.2001. Subsequently, he retired on 31.1.2001. He has stated that for the first time Nitya Nand Singh submitted application for date of birth on 27.11.2000 claiming his date of birth as 1.1.1943 on the basis of the school leaving certificate which was earlier never produced by him in the company and at the fag end of his career he cannot claim change of date of birth. He has stated that for the first time Nitya Nand Singh submitted application for date of birth on 27.11.2000 claiming his date of birth as 1.1.1943 on the basis of the school leaving certificate which was earlier never produced by him in the company and at the fag end of his career he cannot claim change of date of birth. The Hon'ble High Court also directed the BCCL to dispose of the representation filed by the workman-plaintiff which was accordingly, done giving a finding that as per the medical report his date of birth is 31.1.2001 and he was rightly issued retiremenlal notice. The defendant No. 1 was cross-examined by the plaintiff and in his cross examination, he had admitted that ext.1 and ext.1/A were issued by the, company in which the date of birth has been shown as 1.1.1943. The defendant -company did not produce any retiremental register or other things to brought final pages of the note sheet which was produced by the Defendant No. 1 and the same was marked as Ext.3 in the trial. This defendant in para 63 admitted that after refreshing the ext.3, the witness says that date of birth as mentioned in superannuation register as well as on the school leaving certificate are one and the same i.e. 1.1.1943. He also admitted that plaintiff had filed marriage certificate and character certificate also at the time of joining. 8. Thus, after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent, 1 find that although, the appellant-BCCL had tried to support and prove that at the time of appointment, the deceased-employee, Nitya Nand Singh was medically examined and on his examination, marked Ext.B, it has been admitted by the plaintiff, who signed the same and his signature was admitted by him marked as ext. 3 and if the arguments of the of the appellant- company is accepted then the plaintiff cannot raise the dispute at the fag end of his service after 30 years. 3 and if the arguments of the of the appellant- company is accepted then the plaintiff cannot raise the dispute at the fag end of his service after 30 years. But, from looking into the evidences as adduced by the appellant-company, who is examined only one witnesses, D.W.1, Basudeo Singh, who is claimed to be the Project Officer of the Patherdih Coal Washery, it appears that he admitted the claim of the plaintiff- respondent that as per Ext.3 which was produced by him, the date of birth mentioned in the superannuation register of the company and the school leaving certificate relied by the plaintiff-respondent are one and the same i.e. 1.1.1943. If this admission is accepted then the two identity cards issued in 1972 by SAIL and after merger of the Patherdih Coal Washery with the BCCL, second Identity card was issued by BCCL marked as Ext.1/1, both shows that in the company register the date of birth of the respondent- plaintiff was 1.1.1943. 9. In that view of the matter, by the admission of the defendant, the, plaintiffs claim has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and in that view of the mater, 1 find no illegality in the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge-6th, dhanbad decreeing the T.S. No. 131 of 2003 and declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff as 1.1.1943. Accordingly, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed without any cost. Appeal dismissed.