JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to quash notice of retirement dated 28/30.01.2010 bearing letter no. 5580 whereby the Petitioner has been informed that he would retire from the services of the Company (B.C.C.L.) on 30.06.2010 on completion of 60 years of age and further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make necessary correction in the office record regarding the date of birth which has been wrongly mentioned by the Respondents as 23.06.1950 which is to be corrected and read as 08.06.1952 and has also prayed for a direction upon the concerned Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue in service for further two year i.e. till 30.06.2012 as per his correct date of birth i.e. 08.06.1952 when he would actually attain the age of 60 years. 2. Sans details, the facts as averred in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner joined the services in the year 1971 with Albian Colliery (the erstwhile owners) after passing his 7th Board Examination conducted by Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in the year 1965 and since then he has been working at different capacities and grades and even after take over of the colliery by the Government of India which is at present known as BCCL the petitioner has been regularly working under the respondents. The petitioner is working as senior cashier at Barora Area office, Area No. 1, situated at village Dumra, P.S. Baghmara District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. The petitioner after passing his 7th Board Examination in the year 1965 before his employment, had passed his Matriculation Examination in the year 1974 from Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jagjiwannagar. The date of birth as per the school certificates of 7th as well as Matriculation is 08.06.1952. School Certificates and mark sheet of Board Examination are being annexed as Annexure-1 series to the writ application. The petitioner had submitted the aforesaid pass certificate of 7th Board Examination before his employers at the time of appointment and joining the services and thereafter submitted his pass certificate and mark sheet of Matriculation Examination before his employers. The petitioner vide his representation dated 07.10.2003 represented before the Respondent No. 2 and requested the authority to incorporate the necessary change in the date of birth particulars in Form-B register. The petitioner vide his representation dated 07.10.2003 represented before the Respondent No. 2 and requested the authority to incorporate the necessary change in the date of birth particulars in Form-B register. Vide his representation dated 24.06.2004 the Petitioner submitted his reminder with the concerned Respondent for changing the date of birth and pursuant to the petitioner's representation, the Management corresponded with the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna for verification of the certificates and the date of birth of the petitioner and accordingly also deposited necessary fee for verification with B.S.E.B., Patna. Thereafter, the petitioner came to learn that the certificates and the date of birth were verified by the Management from B.S.E.B. and the date of birth of the petitioner is 08.06.1952 and vide note sheet dated 28.07.2004 signed by three officials, namely, Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Personnel Manager and Chief General Manager, Barora Area the case of the petitioner was considered and recommended for correction of the date of birth by observing that since the date of birth recorded in certificates are prior to his date of appointment, the case deserves for consideration. Inspite of the aforesaid recommendation necessary corrections were not carried out by the Management. The petitioner from time to time kept on submitting his reminders before the concerned Respondents. Few of such reminder representations are being annexed as Annexure-6 series to the writ application. The petitioner was taken by surprise when he was served with the notice of retirement dated 28/30.01.2010 bearing letter no. 5580 whereby he was informed that he would retire from the services of the Company on 30.06.2010 on completion of 60 years of age. The petitioner vide his representation dated 05.04.2010 requested Dy. General Manager, Barora Area, B..C.L. For correction of his date of birth and informed that as per his date of birth recorded in the certificates his date of retirement should be 30.06.2012. The petitioner submitted all the desired documents from time to time to the concerned respondents for doing the needful but without considering the correctness of the case of the petitioner, he has been noticed to retire prematurely on the basis of the wrong date of birth entered in the Company records. The petitioner submitted all the desired documents from time to time to the concerned respondents for doing the needful but without considering the correctness of the case of the petitioner, he has been noticed to retire prematurely on the basis of the wrong date of birth entered in the Company records. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Heard Mr. Ramit Satendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the Respondents-B.C.C.L. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3, repelling the contentions made in the writ application. It has been inter alia, submitted in the counter affidavit, that inter alia, that the petitioner's date of birth has been recorded as 23.06.1950 in the existing statutory Form-B Register. The petitioner had accepted and acknowledged the said entry made in statutory Form-B Register and he is estopped from challenging the said entry at the fag end of his service. It has been stated that earlier the petitioner had never disclosed that his date of birth has been wrongly entered in the service record. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2010 and as such he has been rightly informed by the impugned notice regarding his superannuation. It has been stated that if there is any such dispute, the petitioner can get his age declared by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and can raise an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ petition is not maintainable against such notice or for the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. 5. Mr. Ramit Satendra, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the concerned authorities of the respondents-B.C.C.L. have not taken any decision upon the dispute relating to the Date of Birth of the petitioner, which is pending since years and firstly raised in the year 1987. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted all the desired documents from time to time to the concerned respondents for doing the needful but without considering the correctness of the case of the petitioner, he has been noticed to retire prematurely on the basis of the wrong date of birth entered in the Company records. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted all the desired documents from time to time to the concerned respondents for doing the needful but without considering the correctness of the case of the petitioner, he has been noticed to retire prematurely on the basis of the wrong date of birth entered in the Company records. Learned counsel further submits that by adopting dilatory tactics, in spite of proper verification of the certificates of the petitioner from the B.S.E.B., Patna and the recommendation made by the authorities in the note sheet dated 28.07.2004, the notice of premature retirement has been issued by the Management of the Respondents-B.C.C.L. Learned counsel submits that there is no discrepancy in the date of birth mentioned in the certificate of 07th Board Examination and the Matriculation Examination. Learned counsel also submits that one Ram Ratan Rawani, Attendance Clerk, employee code no. 00046482, BCCL was made to retire prematurely on 01.11.2008 vide letter no. 1087 dated 31.10.2008. After his retirement, he was asked to submit his admit card and matriculation mark sheet before the DOB Cell, BCCL, vide letter dated 22/25.11.2008. Subsequently, vide office order dated 16/17.03.2009, the said Ram Ratan Rawani was allowed to join his duties with immediate effect and was allowed to continue his services up to 31.01.2009. Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice and needs to be deprecated. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Digvijay Singh versus Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director/Director Personnel, Dhanbad & Ors. reported in 2008 (3) JCR 611 (Jhr). 6. Per contra, Mr. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Digvijay Singh versus Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director/Director Personnel, Dhanbad & Ors. reported in 2008 (3) JCR 611 (Jhr). 6. Per contra, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the Respondents-B.C.C.L. has vociferously submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed on 09.10.1971 at Damoda Colliery and his date of birth as mentioned in Form-B register was 22 years on the date of appointment and at the time of entry in employment the petitioner had not submitted any school certificate and stated that at the time of receiving service excerpts he raised the date of birth dispute and at the time of appointment, he was not matriculate but due to oversight, he could not produce date of birth i.e. 08.06.1952 which is incorporated in middle board certificate and thus, from this fact, it can be deduced that 7th Pass certificate is doubtful documents and cannot be relied upon as it is admission on the part of the writ petitioner that he had not filed this document at the time of entering in service. Learned counsel submits that in the service excerpts, his date of birth is mentioned as 23.06.1950 and as per declaration in Form-A and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to serve upto 30.06.2012. Learned counsel further submitted that if there is any such dispute, the petitioner can get his age declared by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and can raise an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel also submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable against such notice or for the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. 7. The moot points raised in the instant writ application is (i) as to whether the dated of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated is the conclusive proof of age or the date of birth recorded in the service record of the respondents is the conclusive proof of age and (ii) whether the issue regarding the wrong entry of date of birth can be raised at the fag end of service? 8. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to demonstrate foundational facts and law to make out a case for interference due to the reasons stated hereinbelow :- (i) In the case of Digvijay Singh versus Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director/Director Personnel, Dhanbad & Ors. reported in 2008 (3) JCR 611 (Jhr), wherein this Court by relying on the Full Bench decision in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s. B.C.C.L. reported in 2007 (3) JLJR 726 : 2007 (3) JCR 681 (Jhr) (FB) has been pleased to inter alia hold as under :- “7. Exactly the same controversy arose in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s. B.C.C.L. reported in 2007 (3) JLJR 726 : 2007 (3) JCR 681 (Jhr) (FB) and the same was considered and answered by a Full Bench of this Court. The Full Bench in similar fact situation and the contentions made by the parties decided the said point with reference to the Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the National Coal Wage Agreement -III which provides for determination of the age at the time of appointment and also for review/determination of the date of birth in respect of the existing employees. Implementation Instruction No. 76 reads as follows :- “Implementation Instruction No. 76 Procedure for Determination/Verification of Age of Employees (A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment (I) Matriculates In the case of appointees, who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.” 8. Considering the said Implementation Instruction and other aspects as also a number of decisions, the Full Bench answered that "the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated by the Education Board is a conclusive proof of age and no other records, including service records as both the parties are governed by Implementation Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III". It was also held in the light of the Supreme Court decision that if the Court is 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 when a clear case, relating to the date of birth, is made out on the basis of clinching materials, then necessary direction to make a declaration of the said date of birth can be given even at the fag end of the service. 9. In this case the petitioner had made representation long back in the year 1989. On his representation, the department had sent his Matriculation Certificate for verification to the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. On verification, the said Examination Board found the certificate genuine and informed the same to the concerned authority. The petitioner was served notice of his retirement in the year 2006. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner had claimed correction in the entry of the date of birth at the fag end of his service. The objection of the respondents that the petitioner's claim for correction of date' of birth at the fag end of service cannot be entertained, is also not acceptable. 10. Since the issues arising out in the instant case are no longer res integra and the same have been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Kamta Pandey case (supra), the said issues must be answered in favour of the petitioner. It is held that on the basis of the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate date of birth of the petitioner has to be corrected in the service record.” 9. On cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, this writ application is allowed. The respondents-BCCL are directed to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the service record as per the entry of date of birth in Matriculation Certificate. The petitioner, who has been made to prematurely retire, shall be deemed to have attained the age of superannuation on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate as 08.06.1952. The impugned notice of retirement dated 28/30.01.2010 bearing letter no. The petitioner, who has been made to prematurely retire, shall be deemed to have attained the age of superannuation on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate as 08.06.1952. The impugned notice of retirement dated 28/30.01.2010 bearing letter no. 5580 whereby the petitioner has been informed that he would retire from the services of the Company on 30.06.2010 on completion of 60 years of age, is not legally sustainable and is accordingly quashed. Since the petitioner had been forced to stop working by the said illegal notice of retirement by the respondents, he shall be entitled to get all consequential benefits of the intervening period including the arrears of salary/allowances. The arrears of salary shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.