JUDGMENT : K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against the respondents for accepting the date of birth of the petitioner to be 15.7.1959 and to correct the entry in the service roll where the wrong date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 13.3.1955. It is contended by the petitioner that he came in the employment in the year 1981. He passed the High School Board Examination from the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1976. His name was recorded in the employment exchange in the year 1980. In the records of the employment exchange, the right date of birth of the petitioner was recorded. However, by some error the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly recorded in the service roll. Despite this recording of the wrong date of birth, when the petitioner was declared as Mining Sardar and a certificate was issued to him in the year 1986, the right date of birth was mentioned in the said certificate. The petitioner was under the bona fide belief that his right date of birth is mentioned in relevant documents, and he was not required to make any complaint in that respect for correction of his date of birth. The fact remains that such recording of date of birth was not intimated to the petitioner and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to make any representation for correction of the date of birth. 2. In the year 1991, when the petitioner was issued a certificate under the Mining Act as Overman, his right date of birth was mentioned in the said certificate. In the year 1999, the petitioner was promoted as senior Overman, but at that time also it was not pointed out to him that any error was committed in recording of his date of birth. The petitioner thereafter when made the application for adding surname with his name, he mentioned the date of birth as reflected in the High School Certificate, which affidavit too was accepted by the respondents-employer, but no error in mentioning the date of birth was pointed out to the petitioner. When he came to know that the wrong date of birth is recorded in the service roll, for correction in it, he made a representation before the higher authorities. When he came to know that the wrong date of birth is recorded in the service roll, for correction in it, he made a representation before the higher authorities. Since the representation earlier made was not being considered after getting the High School Certificate verified from the Council of Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh, again the representation was made by the petitioner in the year 2003 and such a representation is rejected by the impugned order, therefore, the petitioner is left with no option but to knock the doors of this Court seeking a direction against the respondents to make correction in the date of birth. 3. Upon service of the notice of the writ petition, the respondents have filed their return, contending inter alia that all such allegations made by the petitioner are misconceived and misleading. It is contended by the respondents that Form-B was prepared under the provisions of Section 48, 51, 77 and 77-A(2) of the Mining Act and in that statutory document, the correct age on the date of appointment of the petitioner is specifically mentioned. It is contended that in all other relevant documents, the date of birth of the petitioner is specifically mentioned and such fact was well within the knowledge of the petitioner right from the date of appointment. The petitioner was issued the relevant certificate and information in respect of entries made in the service roll and in that information it was categorically pointed out that the date of birth of the petitioner was 13.3.1955. Certain information the petitioner was required to furnish about the family members, who are the dependents of the petitioner and while furnishing such information, the petitioner has signed the same. At that time also, no dispute was raised by the petitioner that his date of birth was wrongly recorded. In fact, the petitioner came on transfer from the other colliery and he was required to bring with him all the relevant documents such as CMPF pass book, identity card, attested photographs and Form-B register. From the said documents, the entries were made in the present establishment of the petitioner and, therefore, when the representation was made by the petitioner, it was already decided by the respondents on 15.1.1999. From the said documents, the entries were made in the present establishment of the petitioner and, therefore, when the representation was made by the petitioner, it was already decided by the respondents on 15.1.1999. In view of this, since there was no error committed in mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner, there was no occasion for the respondents to refer the representation of the petitioner to the Age Determination Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ADC for brevity), in terms of the National Coal Wage Implementation Instruction No. 76. This being so, the claim made by the petitioner in the present petition is wholly misconceived and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Though a rejoinder is filed by the petitioner and later the application is also filed for amendment in the writ petition, challenging the retirement notice as well, but the said application is not pressed by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner stating that if the dispute is decided in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, there would be no necessity of challenging the notice of retirement. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner is an educated person, who has obtained at least a certificate of High School Examination in the year, 1976, from a competent Council of State of Uttar Pradesh. It is also not in dispute that date of birth of the petitioner is written in the said certificate in words and figures both. The other relevant documents produced by the petitioner to show the date of birth are the certificate of his registration as unemployed person wherein also the age of the petitioner is reflected and the date of birth of the petitioner is categorically recorded. This being so, if there was a valid document available with the petitioner to prove his date of birth, what was the reason of not disclosing the said document before the employer at the time of initial appointment ? Whether on the basis of date of birth declared in the said certificate, still the petitioner was eligible to be appointed, in the service ? This has to be examined to find out whether petitioner had any reason to suppress such a document at the time of initial appointment. Whether on the basis of date of birth declared in the said certificate, still the petitioner was eligible to be appointed, in the service ? This has to be examined to find out whether petitioner had any reason to suppress such a document at the time of initial appointment. Even if, the date of birth mentioned in the certificate of High School Examination is taken into consideration, on the date of initial appointment i.e. 13.3.1981, the petitioner was eligible to be appointed in the service and for him there was no occasion to conceal the correct date of birth. Rather, it was disadvantageous to the petitioner. 7. As against this, if the entries made in Form-B certificate are seen, in Column No. 4, where the age and sex are required to be mentioned only, the age of petitioner as 26 years, has been mentioned. For referring the age as 26 years, a note is made that this has been done as per medical examination held on 13.3.1981. It appears that from this, the date of birth of the petitioner was assessed to be 13.3.1955. However, mere certificate of the Medical Board was not enough to mention the date of birth of the petitioner. From this itself, it is clear that when the matter was represented by the petitioner on the strength of a High School Examination Certificate, a dispute regarding the date of birth has occurred, which according to the provisions of Implementation Instructions No. 76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement was required to be referred to the ADC. The said ADC was required to verify the correctness of the High School Examination Certificate from the competent authority and was required to reach to the conclusion whether such date of birth mentioned in the certificate was correct or not. 8. Precisely, this was the issue raised before this Court on earlier occasion and the matter travelled up to the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal. In the case of South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others Vs. Nijammuddin and another [I.L.R. (2009) MP 3053], the Division Bench of this Court has referred several decisions of the Apex Court and came to the conclusion that the ADC is required to first look into the certificate of matriculation and then to proceed to decide the dispute about the date of birth. Nijammuddin and another [I.L.R. (2009) MP 3053], the Division Bench of this Court has referred several decisions of the Apex Court and came to the conclusion that the ADC is required to first look into the certificate of matriculation and then to proceed to decide the dispute about the date of birth. The Division Bench in para 15 and 16 has held thus :- "15. We have referred to these decisions only to highlight that when the order passed by the authorities suffers from procedural irregularity, it is legally vulnerable. The said procedural irregularity would include where relevant factors have not been considered. In the case at hand, the Age Determination Committee has not addressed at all with regard to the relevance of the mark sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education while determining the age. It is worth nothing that the consideration of mark sheet and such other documents do find mention in the Implementation Instruction No. 76. In this context, we may profitably reproduce the relevant portion of the Implementation Instruction No. 76 : "(B). Review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. (I) (a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the Universities or Board or Middle pass certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instructions and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Board/ Instructions prior to the date of employment. As is evincible the said facet has not been adverted to at all by the Age Determination Committee. Thus, indubitably, the relevant factors have not been considered and when relevant factors have not been considered, the decision of the Age Determination Committee is irrefragably subject to judicial review as the decision making process is legally unsustainable. At this juncture, it is worth nothing that keeping in view the stance of the appellants, we got the documents produced by the writ petitioner before the employer verified by the Board of Secondary Education and an affidavit has been filed by the competent authority of the Board of Secondary Education stating that the documents are absolutely genuine. 16. At this juncture, it is worth nothing that keeping in view the stance of the appellants, we got the documents produced by the writ petitioner before the employer verified by the Board of Secondary Education and an affidavit has been filed by the competent authority of the Board of Secondary Education stating that the documents are absolutely genuine. 16. In view of the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered opinion that an error has crept in the decision of the Age Determination Committee as it has ignored the mark sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education which reflects the date of birth and, therefore, we concur with the view expressed by the learned single Judge." In view of those instructions and after examining the law laid down by the Division Bench, in several cases, this Court has held that the ADC is required to act in terms of the Implementation Instructions No. 76. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that in various cases, this Court has held that such a dispute would be depending on the evidence of correctness of the certificate and, therefore, it would be appropriate for the employee to raise the dispute before the Labour Court where the evidence can be recorded in respect of correctness of the certificate of Board of Secondary Education or Matriculation Certificate. For the said purpose, learned counsel for respondents has placed his reliance in the case of Purushottam Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others [W.P. No.10261/2013(S), decided on 27.11.2013] and Ramlal Mehra Vs. State of M.P. and others [W.P. No.4614/2003, decided on 6.1.2011]. The cases relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents are distinguishable in as much as there was a dispute with respect to the correctness of the Matriculation Certificate and considering such a dispute the ADC has rejected the representation for correction in the date of birth on the basis of such Matriculation Certificate. Here in the case in hand, ADC has not even looked into that Matriculation Certificate produced by the petitioner nor has tested the correctness of the certificate issued by the statutory Council in respect of the validity of the Matriculation Certificate obtained by the petitioner. There was no adjudication on the said representation of the petitioner that the Matriculation Certificate produced by the petitioner was not found to be correct. There was no adjudication on the said representation of the petitioner that the Matriculation Certificate produced by the petitioner was not found to be correct. Therefore, still the claim of the petitioner is to be considered in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nijamuddin (supra). Nothing has been placed on record to show that such a consideration was done by the respondents and, therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the ADC to look into such claim of the petitioner afresh and to decide whether the certificate of Matriculation produced by the petitioner is valid or not. If the said certificate is found to be valid the respondents would be obliged to correct the date of birth of the petitioner, in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nijamuddin (supra). 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.1.1999 and 2/3.8.2007 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refer the case of the petitioner to the ADC for consideration of the correctness of the Matriculation certificate of the year 1976, get it verified from the Secondary Education Council of Uttar Pradesh and if it is found to be correct, to make necessary corrections in accordance to law in the date of birth of the petitioner. Let this be done well before 31.3.2015 and not to retire the petitioner only because of not completing the proceedings as directed by this Court. If any decision is taken against the petitioner, the same be communicated to him well within time, so as to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to assail the said decision in appropriate forum, in accordance to law. 11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.