JUDGMENT 1. RE: C.A.N. 8004 of 2011 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considering the averments made in this application, we are satisfied that sufficient reasons have been furnished and adequate grounds have been mentioned for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. Therefore, delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. Let the appeal be"registered, if the same is otherwise in form. This application, therefore, stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs. RE: C.A.N. 8005 of 2011 2. THIS application has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2011 whereby and whereunder a learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition and directed the concerned authority namely, the appellants herein to correct the date of birth of the respondent/writ petitioner in terms of the documents brought on record by the said respondent/writ petitioner. Mr. L, K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants submits that the respondent/writ petitioner herein did not disclose his date of birth at the time of joining the service and on the basis of medical examination, the date of birth of the said respondent/writ petitioner was recorded in the office records. Mr. Gupta further submits that the respondent/ writ petitioner cannot ask for changing the recorded date of birth at a belated stage upon placing reliance on the school final certificate. Mr. Gupta also submits that the respondent/writ petitioner herein passed the school final examination as a private candidate and the recording of age of a private candidate in the school final examination cannot be equated with that of an regular student. 3. MR. Gupta referred to and relied on a decision of this court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. andAnr. v. Sudhendu Kumar Chakraborty and Ors. reported in Cal LT 1991(1) HC 318. 4. GOING through the records available before this Court and scrutinising the impugned judgment and order under appeal, we find that the learned Single Judge whiie allowing the writ petition found that the respondent/writ petitioner at the time of joining service specifically declared his date of birth as 12th March, 1954 which has been specifically recorded in the 'Cardes Form' supplied by the appellant-Food Corporation of India. It was specifically mentioned in the said 'Cardes Form' that the same should be filled in by the employee concerned at the time of joining service. The respondent/writ petitioner in the said 'Cardes Form' specifically mentioned his date of birth as 12th March, 1954 which has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge while allowing the claim of the said respondent/ writ petitioner. 5. FURTHERMORE, it also appears from the records that a circular was issued by the Food Corporation of India on 16th January, 1981 directing the departmentalised workers to submit their Bio-data in the specified proforma. 6. THE respondent/writ petitioner submitted his Bio-data in the prescribed proforma on 14th December, 1981 wherein the said respondent/writ petitioner specifically mentioned his date of birth as 12th March, 1954 and further mentioned his qualification as school final. THE concerned authority on 1st July, 1982 put a note on the said Bio-data to the following effect: "Particulars may be verified from the records" Undisputedly, the concerned authority did not dispute the correctness of the date of birth of the respondent/writ petitioner after submission of the aforesaid Bio-data on 14th December, 1981. 7. THE claim of the respondent/writ petitioner for correction of his date of birth was strongly recommended by the District Manager (NPD), Food Corporation of India on 28th August, 2001 upon considering the Admit Card and the school final certificate of the said respondent/writ petitioner. THE aforesaid written communication of the District Manager (NPD), Food Corporation of India dated 28th August, 2001 addressed to the Senior Regional Manager (WB), Food Corporation of India is set out hereunder: THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE DIST. MANAGER (NPD) 69, GANESH CH. AVENUE, CALCUTTA-13 NO, DO(NPD)/LAB/Admn/2001 Dated : 28-08-2001 To THE Sr. Regional Manager (WB) Food Corporation of India 6, Royd Street, Calcutta-16 Attention: Dy. Manager (IR)/R.O.(WB) Sub : Re-assessment of age in respect of Sri Ratan Dey, AW-X/2, of FSD, Kalyani Sir, In connection with the subject cited above, Sri Ratan Dey, AW-X/2 of FSD Kalyani has submitted one prayer. In support of his prayer he has submitted the following documents: 1) Sri Ratan Dey, AW-X/2 of FSD Kalyani appeared before the Prof. and Head of the Department, Dept. of Forensic and State Medicines, Medical College and Hospital, Calcutta for ascertain his age. He has submitted one xerox copy of Medicine report (copy enclosed). In support of his prayer he has submitted the following documents: 1) Sri Ratan Dey, AW-X/2 of FSD Kalyani appeared before the Prof. and Head of the Department, Dept. of Forensic and State Medicines, Medical College and Hospital, Calcutta for ascertain his age. He has submitted one xerox copy of Medicine report (copy enclosed). From that report it is found that his age was 33 years in the year 1987 which found also as per his other documents. 2) In the nomination form his date of birth has been entered as 12-3-1954 (xerox copy enclosed). 3) In the Cardes form submitted by him which was duly certified by C.L.I. is also found as 12-3-1954 (xerox copy enclosed). 4) In his school final Admit Card which is very authentic one also found his date of birth as 12-3-1954 (xerox copy enclosed). 5) In his School Final certificate which was issued by Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal, it is clearly mentioned his date of birth is as 12-3-1954 (xerox copy enclosed) which is most authentic document in support of his age verification. Considering the above documents which are all in favour of Sri Ratan Dey, AW-X/2 of FSD, Kalyani, this office strongly recommend his case and request you to kindly give necessary order from your end to rectify his date of birth which will be 12-3-1954 in place of 2-8-1951 as he can perform full service in F.C.I. THE Labour representatives of FCI, FSD Kalyani are pressing hard in this matter. Awaiting for your kind instruction please. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (CAPT. RANBIR SINGH) DISTRICT MANAGER (NPD)" 8. THEREFORE, the respondent/writ petitioner herein not only mentioned his date of birth as 12th March, 1954 in the 'Cardes Form' supplied by the appellant-Corporation at the time of joining service but also mentioned the same date of birth in the Nomination form. It is not in dispute that the respondent/writ petitioner appeared in the school final examination as a private candidate long before his joining the service and, therefore, the date of birth mentioned in the said school final certificate has to be relied upon for the purpose of ascertaining his date of birth. 9. THE judgment relied upon by Mr. Gupta in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited and Anr. (Supra) has no manner of application in the facts of the present case. 10. 9. THE judgment relied upon by Mr. Gupta in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited and Anr. (Supra) has no manner of application in the facts of the present case. 10. IN the aforesaid judgment, fact was completely different. Going through the aforesaid judgment, we find that the employee concerned declared his different date of birth at the time of entry into the service. The date of birth declared in the Nomination form under the Provident Fund Rules by the said employee was also different from the date of birth recorded in the school final certificate. The respondent/writ petitioner in the aforesaid case also produced one Horoscope to substantiate his claim regarding the date of birth which was available in the year 1960 i.e. almost about 28 years after his actual date of birth. The Division Bench upon co'nsidering the corroborative and documentary evidence namely, Declaration in the Nomination form etc. arrived at the conclusion that the date of birth of the employee concerned should be determined on the basis of the medical examination and no reliance was placed on the school final certificate since the date of birth recorded in the school final certificate was contrary to the date of birth declared by the employee concerned. 11. FURTHERMORE the school final certificate of the employee concerned was also not considered as a contemporaneous document by the Hon'ble Division Bench in aforesaid case. 12. IN the present case, we, however, find that the respondent/writ petitioner all through claimed his date of birth as 12th March, 1954 which was not only recorded in the school final certificate issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education but also the same was specifically declared by the respondent/writ petitioner in the 'Cardes Form' at the time of joining the servics. The said respondent/writ petitioner long before attaining the age of super-annuation requested the Joint Manager, Food Corporation of INdia in the year 1985 to correct his recorded date of birth on the basis of the school final certificate and the said written request was duly received by the concerned authority on 29th March, 1985. The said respondent/writ petitioner long before attaining the age of super-annuation requested the Joint Manager, Food Corporation of INdia in the year 1985 to correct his recorded date of birth on the basis of the school final certificate and the said written request was duly received by the concerned authority on 29th March, 1985. The date of birth mentioned in the Admit Card and the school final certificate of the respondent/writ petitioner are the best proof of the date of birth of the said respondent/writ petitioner which the employer cannot ignore as those documents are admittedly, contemporaneous documents since the same were issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education before joining of the respondent/writ petitioner in the employment of the appellant-Corporation. 13. FURTHERMORE, other relevant documents namely, the 'Cardes Form' submitted by the respondent/writ petitioner at the time of joining the service and the written communication of the respondent/writ petitioner made in the year 1985 as mentioned hereinbefore and also the written communication of the District Manager dated 28th August, 2011 have clearly established that the respondent/writ petitioner all through claimed his date of birth as 12th March, 1954. 14. IN the instant case, it is clearly evident that the Admit card and the school certificate were contemporaneous documents as the same were issued before joining of the respondent/writ petitioner in the employment of the appellant-Corporation. The appellant-Corporation therefore, should have considered the aforesaid contemporaneous documents together with the other documents as mentioned hereinbefore namely, the written communication of the District Manager dated 28th August, 2011 as well as the 'Cardes Form' which was submitted by the, respondent/writ petitioner at the time of joining the service for the purpose of allowing the claim of the said respondent/writ petitioner regarding correction of his erroneously recorded date of birth. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent/ writ petitioner at the fag end of his service career tried to change his recorded date of birth. 15. THE learned Single Judge upon considering all the relevant documents has rightly decided issues raised in the writ petition on merits. 16. WE do not find any infirmity and/or illegality and/or irregularity in the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we find no scope to interfere with the impugned judgment and order under appeal. 15. THE learned Single Judge upon considering all the relevant documents has rightly decided issues raised in the writ petition on merits. 16. WE do not find any infirmity and/or illegality and/or irregularity in the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we find no scope to interfere with the impugned judgment and order under appeal. In the aforesaid circumstances, we dismiss this application as well as the appeal upon treating the said appeal as on day's list since we do not find any merit in the same. 17. IN the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.