JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Being aggrieved of the order dated 10th April, 2008 handed down by learned Writ Court in W.P (S) No. 1194 of 2006, the appellant-writ petitioner (herein after to be referred to as the 'petitioner') knocked the doors of this Court through the medium of the instant Letters Patent Appeal, which was admitted on 19.11.2008 and now taken on board for its final consideration. 2. The issue cropped up in the instant matter is with regard to the age/date of birth of the petitioner. When the petitioner moved the Writ Court, he had already superannuated on 31.08.2006 after rendering 60 years to respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Limited (for short ' BCCL'). 3. Age of the petitioner, as recorded in the records of BCCL at the time of his initial appointment i.e. 30.01.1973, is 28 years. However, exact date of birth is nowhere indicated in the records, the reason being that the petitioner is an illiterate person and was also not in possession of any documentary evidence indicating his exact date of birth. What appears to the Court is that either some employee of BCCL had recorded the age of the petitioner by appearance or the petitioner might have disclosed his age on guess work as 28 years. This situation had not arisen with regard to the petitioner only but to many other employees also, therefore BCCL at one stage in the year, 1986 took a decision for constituting a committee including the medical board for determination of the age of the petitioner and other similarly situated employees of BCCL. The said decision is available as Annexure-5 with the memo of appeal. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner and several other employees were medically examined. As per the medical examination of the petitioner, his age was determined as 38 years as on 22nd August, 1986. From this, the exact date of birth of the petitioner was determined as 22.8.1948 and in this regard on 31st May, 1987 service excerpt was supplied to the petitioner for making objection if anything vis-à-vis the date of birth. It is in a shape of prescribed form which, after verification was handed over to BCCL and accepted also. 4. From this, the exact date of birth of the petitioner was determined as 22.8.1948 and in this regard on 31st May, 1987 service excerpt was supplied to the petitioner for making objection if anything vis-à-vis the date of birth. It is in a shape of prescribed form which, after verification was handed over to BCCL and accepted also. 4. When it came to the notice of the petitioner that BCCL is contemplating retiring the petitioner on 31.08.2006 on the basis of the age recorded at the time of initial appointment (28 years), he moved a representation somewhere in January, 2005 for accepting his date of birth as 22.08.1948 as determined by the committee duly constituted, but to no positive response, instead a notice was served upon him on 15.02.2006 of superannuation. In the meantime, the petitioner was superannuated on 31.08.2006, as stated herein above and, thereafter he filed the Writ Petition. 5. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly there was no documentary evidence available with the petitioner indicating the exact date of birth at the time of his initial appointment and, therefore, by approximation it was reflected as 28 years, otherwise, the exact date of birth should have been mentioned. She submitted that for this reason only, BCCL itself at one stage had thought of getting the age of the petitioner determined by a duly constituted committee including the medical board and this happened to as many as 300 employees of BCCL. Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of the report prepared by medical board the age of the petitioner subsequently turned out to be 38 years as on 22.08.1986, which was duly accepted by BCCL, therefore there was no justification with BCCL to superannuate the petitioner on 31.08.2006 and that the retirement age should have been somewhere in August, 2008 instead of year 2006. 6. In support of her contentions, learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 696 , wherein in Para Nos. 19 and 20 it is held as under :- “19. Its authenticity is not disputed by the parties. Indeed the respondent employee has filed this document as Annexure R-7 to the counter-affidavit filed in this Court. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 696 , wherein in Para Nos. 19 and 20 it is held as under :- “19. Its authenticity is not disputed by the parties. Indeed the respondent employee has filed this document as Annexure R-7 to the counter-affidavit filed in this Court. Under para ‘A’ the manner of determination of age at the time of appointment is laid down. Under para ‘B’ are laid down the procedures to be followed in cases of determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. Under sub-para (i) of para ‘B’ the case of the existing employee having a Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognised University or Board or Middle Form Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction should be treated as the correct date of birth provided the documents are issued by the University/Board prior to the date of the employment. Under sub-para (i)(b) of para ‘B’ it is provided that mining sirdarship, windup engine or similar other statutory certificate where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Provided that where both the documents mentioned in (i)(a) and (i)(b) above are available the date of birth in (i)(a) will be treated as authentic. In clause (ii) of para ‘B’ it is specifically stated that wherever there is no variation in records such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the management. The management, after being satisfied on the merit of the case will take appropriate steps for corrections through the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board. In ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ the procedures to be followed by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for determination of age of an employee are laid down. The provisions read as follows :- “(C) Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the management. In ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ the procedures to be followed by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for determination of age of an employee are laid down. The provisions read as follows :- “(C) Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the management. In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the Company, namely, Form ‘B’ register, CMPF Record and Identity Cards (untampered) will be treated as final, provided that where there is a nomination in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board constituted by the management for determination of age. (D) Age determination: by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board referred to above may consider their evidence available with the colliery management; and/or (E) Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to manage (sic assess) the age in accordance with the requirement of medical jurisprudence and the Medical Board will as far as possible indicate the accurate age assessed and not approximately.” 20. From the provisions in the instructions referred to above, it is clear that in case of dispute over the date of birth of an existing employee who has neither a Matriculation Certificate/Secondary School Certificate nor a statutory certificate in which the Manager has certified the entry regarding the date of birth to be authentic the employer is to refer the matter to the Medical Board. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action taken by the appellant to refer the case of the respondent to the Medical Board. The Medical Board as laid down in the instructions is to consider the matter on the evidence available with the colliery management and in accordance with the requirement of medical jurisprudence. As noted earlier, in the present case the Medical Board determined the age of the respondent to be 52 years in 1988 and the employer (appellant) accepted such determination. In the circumstances there was hardly any scope for the High Court to interfere with the date of birth as determined by the employer (appellant herein) and issue a writ of mandamus that the date as claimed by the employee (the respondent herein) should be accepted.” 7. In the circumstances there was hardly any scope for the High Court to interfere with the date of birth as determined by the employer (appellant herein) and issue a writ of mandamus that the date as claimed by the employee (the respondent herein) should be accepted.” 7. Learned counsel, on the strength of the ratio of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. case (supra) has vehemently contended that in the above noted case, the date of birth given by the employee was not accepted and the date of birth as recorded by medical board was considered as correct date of birth. 8. Mrs. Pal, thus, prays for allowing the instant appeal and setting aside the impugned order submitting that the petitioner will now be entitled to the salary of the intervening period and the retiral benefits as he has already superannuated in the year 2006. 9. Repudiating the arguments advanced by Mrs. Pal, learned senior counsel, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for BCCL submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner has rightly been recorded as 28 years in Form-B register maintained by BCCL which contains the thumb impression of the petitioner also. He further submitted that Annexure-5, vide which the committee was constituted, clearly indicates that if the age is not recorded in any records, then only the age was to be determined by the medical board and not otherwise. Mr. Mehta, in fact, wants to impress upon the Court that the petitioner in fact, should not have been sent for medical examination at all for the purposes of age determination because his case was entirely different from other employees. 10. We are not at all convinced with the arguments advanced by Mr. Mehta. 11. What is said in the decision taken on 18th June, 1986 (Annexure-6) by BCCL is with regard to assessing the age of those workers whose age records are not available in the records like Form-B. Non-availability of the records means non-availability of any supporting documentary evidence with regard to the age mentioned in Form-B at the time of initial appointment. That is the reason that not only the petitioner, other similarly situated employees were also asked to appear before the medical board for age determination and those were about 300 persons as stated by Mrs. Pal, learned senior counsel at the Bar. That is the reason that not only the petitioner, other similarly situated employees were also asked to appear before the medical board for age determination and those were about 300 persons as stated by Mrs. Pal, learned senior counsel at the Bar. Should be we take it that with regard to all these employees there was no age indicated in the Form-B, the answer perhaps would be 'no'. Therefore, when BCCL thought that the exact age of the petitioner and other similar employees was not determined, there being no exact date of birth, which might create problem at the time of retirement of these employees, the situation arose of determining the age by medical board. We, therefore, reject the arguments advanced by Mr. Mehta on this count. 12. Viewed thus, there appears to be no justification with BCCL to disown the service excerpts submitted by the petitioner after the determination of the age as 38 years on 22.08.1986 by the duly constituted committee and accepted by BCCL. This is dated 31.05.1987 much before the date of superannuation of the petitioner which is 31.08.2006. The said prescribed form is filled by BCCL as is clear from it and after verifying the contents, it is submitted by the petitioner and accepted by BCCL. 13. In case, BCCL was not accepting the age of the petitioner as 22.08.1948 as determined by medical board, in all fairness, it should have disclosed this fact to the petitioner when a representation was moved by the petitioner in January 2005. BCCL sat tight over the said representation and then issued notice of superannuation to the petitioner. Had BCCL taken some decision in this regard and communicated to the petitioner, he could have thrown challenge to the said decision. Therefore, BCCL cannot be allowed to back out from their own exercise carried for determining the age of the petitioner. 14. In our considered view, judgment cited by Mrs. Pal in G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra) squarely covers the case of the petitioner on all angles and he deserves the relief asked for. 15. Resultantly, we allow the instant appeal, set-aside the impugned judgment/order dated 10th April, 2008 handed down in W.P.(S) No. 1194 of 2006. In turn, the said writ petition stands allowed, as prayed for. 16. Pal in G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra) squarely covers the case of the petitioner on all angles and he deserves the relief asked for. 15. Resultantly, we allow the instant appeal, set-aside the impugned judgment/order dated 10th April, 2008 handed down in W.P.(S) No. 1194 of 2006. In turn, the said writ petition stands allowed, as prayed for. 16. Since the petitioner has already superannuated, he shall only be now entitled to salary for the intervening period and the retiral benefits, accordingly, which, undoubtedly would flow towards him. Let needful be done within three months from today. Petition allowed.