JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.8.2010, whereby the petitioner was informed regarding his attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2011. The petitioner has also prayed for direction on the respondents to correct the entry of his date of birth in the record of the Company on the basis of his Matriculation certificate. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner passed Matriculation examination prior to his appointment and joining the service of the respondents. According to the Matriculation certificate, the petitioner's date of birth is 4.9.1955. But in the service record his date of birth was wrongly entered as 15.1.1951. The said mistake in entry was made despite submission of his Matriculation certificate before the respondents. The petitioner was under the bonafide impression all along that the entry of his date of birth in the service record is the same as mentioned in the Matriculation certificate and there was no occasion for him to raise any such dispute earlier. 3. The petitioner was taken by surprise, when the said impugned notice dated 21.8.2010 was served on him informing his premature superannuation on the basis of wrong entry of his date of birth as 15.1.1951. The petitioner has filed this writ petition as he has no other alternative and speedy remedy. 4. It has been submitted that according to the provisions of National Joint Committee for Steel (NJCS), Matriculation certificate is an authentic document of proof of date of birth. The respondents, contrary to the entry of the petitioner's date of birth in the Matriculation certificate, have put an arbitrary date of birth in the service record. By the said arbitrary entry, the tenure of the service of the petitioner has been shorted by five years. The said reduction of the tenure is highly prejudicial to the petitioner. The respondents, before issuing said notice, never gave any information that the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation certificate shall not be accepted and any other criterion shall be applied for making entry of the date of birth in case of the petitioner. The order impugned is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of principal of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. 5. The petitioner's prayer has been opposed by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. The order impugned is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of principal of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. 5. The petitioner's prayer has been opposed by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. It has been stated, inter alia, that the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in statutory form 'B' Register which contains personal data. The petitioner had also put his signature accepting the entries. That entry was from the very beginning. There was no subsequent change in the entry. The petitioner never challenged the entry during service period. He cannot now deny the entries in the service record after his superannuation. 6. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that if the petitioner had any grievance pertaining to the entry, he should have first approached the respondents, but he hastened to file this writ petition. The writ petition is not at all maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 7. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner files representation regarding the same, the same shall be considered in terms of the provisions of NJCS and appropriate order shall be passed. That question was not raised before the respondents and they had no occasion to consider the grievance of the petitioner, if any. There is no cause for filing this writ petition before approaching the respondents. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had passed Matriculation examination before joining the service. The Matriculation certificate shows the petitioner's date of birth as 4.9.1955, whereas in the record of the company his date of birth is recorded as 15.1.1951. In view thereof, the petitioner's claim deserves consideration and decision by the competent authority of the respondents. 10. The respondents have fairly submitted that if such grievance is raised, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed by the competent authority of the respondents. 11. Considering the above facts, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the Senior Manager (Personnel), IISCO Steel Plant, SAIL, Jitpur, Dhanbad-respondent no.2, who is said to be the competent authority in the matter. 12. 11. Considering the above facts, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the Senior Manager (Personnel), IISCO Steel Plant, SAIL, Jitpur, Dhanbad-respondent no.2, who is said to be the competent authority in the matter. 12. On receipt of the representation, the said respondent shall consider the same in the light of the entry in the Matriculation certificate, relevant judicial decisions and the appropriate provision of NJCS and pass a reasoned order within six weeks from the date of receipt of representation. 13. The respondents shall not be influenced by order dated 21.8.2010 while considering and deciding the petitioner's claim/grievance and disposing of his representation. 14. The respondents shall communicate the order to the petitioner in writing and, if need be, shall issue appropriate consequential order without any delay.