JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Claiming his date of birth as 20.01.1956, the appellant-writ petitioner challenged notice of retirement issued by the respondent M/s IISCO Steel Plant, SAIL vide, Reference dated 10.10.2013 before the Writ Court, which stood dismissed on 30.07.2015. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. Mr. Suraj Singh, the learned counsel for appellant referring to certificate issued on 01.07.1971 by Bihar School Examination Board submits that the appellant was granted promotion on the post of Junior Chemist Trainee on a premise that the appellant has minimum educational qualification of Matriculation and having accepted such qualification of the appellant, the respondents were bound by the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate issued by Bihar School Examination Board. It is contended that the learned Single Judge over-looked the admission on the part of the respondents in granting promotions to the appellant and erroneously dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the correction in date of birth has been sought by the appellant at the fag end of his service. 4. Mr. Ananda Sen, the leaned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that at the time of his appointment, the date of birth of the appellant-writ petitioner was entered 20 years as on 05.03.1974 and thus, taking his date of birth in March, 1954, he was rightly made to superannuate w.e.f. 31.03.2014. It is contended that the appellant must be held to be bound by the entry made at the time of his appointment which bears his signature and since, the appellant failed to give a plausible explanation for not producing his Matriculation certificate at the time of his appointment, the age of the appellant recorded on 05.03.1974 could not have been corrected in the year, 2013. 5. 5. Before examining the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it is appropriate to notice that at the time when the appellant was granted promotion to the post of Junior Chemist Trainee on 14.10.1988, the discrepancy in the Matriculation certificate issued by Bihar School Examination Board and his age recorded in the Form on 05.03.1974 was not brought to the notice of the appellant and at no point in time, before retirement notice dated 10.10.2013 was issued, the appellant was put to notice as to his age recorded in the Form on 05.03.1974. 6. The appellant was initially appointed as Class B Apprentice on 05.03.1974. He, after completion of two years' training, was absorbed on the post of Mechanical Helper Category-II. Upon a vacancy of Junior Chemist Trainee notified in the Laboratory Coal Preparation Plant, Chasnala, the appellant submitted his application through proper channel and finally he was selected for the post of Junior Chemist Trainee on 14.10.1988 and subsequently, he was confirmed on the said post on 24.02.1990. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Chemist on 27.01.2000 and on the post of Chemist vide order dated 22.09.2007. While working on the post of Senior Chemist, to which he was promoted vide order dated 18.06.2012, the appellant was served retirement notice vide Reference dated 10.10.2013 intimating him that he would superannuate on attaining age of 60 years on 31.03.2014. 7. It appears that the appellant made an application under R.T.I, in response to which details of entire service record of the appellant was furnished to him, a copy of which has been marked as Annexure-10 to the Letters Patent Appeal. The said document, which was produced by the appellant before the Writ Court also, discloses that the respondents have admitted that the appellant has passed Secondary School Examination, Bihar in the year, 1971. In the context of the details disclosed by the respondents through R.T.I. vide Annexure-10, when the plea taken by the appellant, that the respondents after being satisfied of minimum educational qualification possessed by the appellant granted promotion to him initially on the post of Junior Chemist Trainee, is examined, it is apparent that the respondents had knowledge of the Matriculation certificate issued by Bihar School Examination Board on 01.07.1971. On the face of the Matriculation certificate issued by Bihar School Examination Board which is prior to entry of the appellant in service that is, 05.03.1974, the reason why the appellant did not produce his Matriculation certificate at the time of his appointment pales into insignificant. It is an admitted position that the entry made in Form filled up on 05.03.1974 whereunder, age of the appellant is recorded 20 years, was on the basis of the assessment by the Medical Board constituted by the respondent-company. As noticed above, at no point in time, the respondents brought the discrepancy in date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate and in the Form filled up on 05.03.1974, to the notice of the appellant. 8. The respondents admitted before the Writ Court that the other documents in the service record filled up by the writ petitioner records his date of birth as 20.01.1956 as per Matriculation certificate. The appellant relied on a decision in “Yogendra Mahto Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited” to contend that promotion of the said employee to the post of Assistant Loading Inspector, on the basis of Matriculation certificate, for which minimum educational qualification is Matriculation, was taken as a ground by the Writ Court to held that the respondents are bound by the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate. However, the learned Writ Court has brushed aside the said plea merely observing that the respondents were directed to examine the representation of the said employee. The appellant has taken a specific plea that essential educational qualification for promotion to the post of Junior Chemist Trainee is Matriculation and on the basis of the Matriculation certificate issued by Bihar School Examination Board on 01.07.1971, he was promoted as Junior Chemist Trainee on 14.10.1988 however, the said plea has not been controverted by the respondents. The dispute as to his date of birth thus, was not raised by the appellant at the fag end rather, the respondents even after accepting his Matriculation certificate seem to have acted illegally in issuing retirement notice dated 10.10.2013. Another fact which cannot be lose sight of is that the date of birth which the appellant is claiming his real date of birth is recorded in the Matriculation certificate issued much prior to his entry in the service. In “Home Deptt. Vs. Another fact which cannot be lose sight of is that the date of birth which the appellant is claiming his real date of birth is recorded in the Matriculation certificate issued much prior to his entry in the service. In “Home Deptt. Vs. R. Kirubakaran” 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under; 7. “............As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth.....................” 9. In the present case, the appellant has claimed his date of birth on the basis of his Matriculation certificate which is an irrefutable document and in fact, accepted by the respondents. Considering the aforesaid fact, the termination notice dated 10.10.2013 is held illegal. The impugned order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the learned Writ Court, is not sustainable and accordingly, it is set-aside. The writ petition stands allowed. 10. In cases relating to the wrongful termination from service, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once termination order has been found illegal, the employee would be entitled for back-wages. Though, grant of full back-wages is not automatic rather, the quantum of back-wages depends on variety of factors, in a case like the present one in which the employee has been wrongfully and illegally prevented from discharging his duty, the employee must be held entitled for full salary. Another aspect of the instant case is that the appellant at the fag end of his service could not have been gainfully employed elsewhere. Another aspect of the instant case is that the appellant at the fag end of his service could not have been gainfully employed elsewhere. Since, the appellant has been wrongly superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.03.2014, he is held entitled for salary for the period between 01.04.2014 to 31.01.2016. Ordered accordingly. 11. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, in the aforesaid terms.