JUDGMENT : VIRENDER SINGH, J. I.A. No. 6088 of 2015 1. For the reasons carved out in the instant application and there being delay of only 30 days, we do not feel necessity for issuing notice upon the respondent-writ petitioner and condone the said delay in filing the accompanied appeal. 2. I.A. No. 6088 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly. L.P.A. No. 640 of 2015 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 4. Aggrieved by order dated 03.08.2015 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3861 of 2009, the appellant-M/s. Central Coalfields Limited (respondent in the writ proceeding) has preferred the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 5. The respondent-employee was appointed on compassionate ground on 04.08.1982 as a Piece Rated Worker and she was posted at Sarubera Colliery. She was an illiterate lady and she had no documentary proof of her date of birth and while-so, her age was assessed by a duly constituted Medical Board, which assessed her age as 25 years as on 04.08.1982. However, in the Coal Mines Provident Fund records her date of birth was recorded as 05.03.1952, which was objected by the respondent and finally, she approached this Court seeking correction in her date of birth. 6. The learned Writ Court had noticed that in Form-B Register which is a statutory Register, the date of birth of the respondent is not mentioned. The respondent immediately after her appointment was referred to the Medical Board still, in statutory Form-B Register her date of birth was not entered. The employer-M/s. CCL did not come forward with a plausible explanation how in the CMPF records the date of birth of the respondent was recorded as 05.03.1952. The learned Single Judge held that in absence of any substantial proof of age the opinion of the Medical Board which was constituted by M/s. CCL assumes primary importance. It was further held that the subsequent records prepared by the Management indicating a different age of the respondent, in the facts of the case, the respondent-M/s. CCL should treat the date of birth of the respondent as assessed by the Medical Board, correct one. 7. We have carefully perused the memorandum of appeal and the Writ Court records. Having appreciated the contention raised on behalf of the M/s. CCL, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the Writ Court. 8. The appeal on hand merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly.