JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:- (I) For quashing the retirement notice dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure -4) issued by the respondent No. 4, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been made to retire prematurely from his service with effect from 31.03.2014 on the basis of unauthentic date of Non Executive Information System (NEIS). (II) To continue the services of the petitioner till he attains the age of superannuation as per the date of birth i.e. 22.03.1956, which is recorded in statutory records viz. Form B Register and Service Excerpt. (III) For payment of salary with all consequential benefit from April 2014 till his resumption of duty since the petitioner is kept out of service due to fault and latches on the part of the respondents. 2. The petitioner was a permanent employee of M/s BCCL, having his PIS No. 00824979 and posted as Dumper Operator at South Tisra OCP under the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of appointment, the respondents recorded and entered the date of birth of the petitioner as 22.03.1956 in the Statutory record i.e. Form-B Register. In the year, 1987, the respondent No. 3 prepared the 'Service Excerpt' of the petitioner and showing therein, the date-of-birth of the petitioner as 22.03.1956 and the same was also supplied to the petitioner for raising any objection, if any and for acknowledgment. But suddenly, the respondent No. 4 served the impugned retirement notice dated 09.12.2013 to the petitioner, intimating therein that he is attaining the age of 60 years on 31.03.2014 as his date of birth as recorded in NEIS is 22.03.1954; therefore, his service will be terminated from 31.03.2014. On receipt of such information, the petitioner represented before the respondent No. 4 on 12.12.2013 protesting therein his illegal and premature retirement and to reconsider his case on the basis of his actual date-of-birth i.e. 22.03.1956 as recorded in the Form B Register, Service Excerpt, medical report, Identity Card and other documents. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 20.03.2014 for the collection of documents in support of the date-of-birth of the petitioner but the respondents are sitting tight over the matter. In spite of the aforesaid facts, unfortunately, the petitioner has been kept out from his service with effect from 31.03.2014. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for redressal of his grievances. In spite of the aforesaid facts, unfortunately, the petitioner has been kept out from his service with effect from 31.03.2014. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents cannot make the petitioner to retire/ superannuate two years prior to his attainment of 60 years of age by interpolating his date of birth, which has been done by the respondents themselves only to snatch away the right of livelihood of the petitioner. The respondents are bound to consider the date of birth as mentioned in the Form B Register i.e. as 22.03.1956. The date-of-birth of the petitioner was wrongly feeded in the NEIS by the officials of the respondents. The date-of-birth of the petitioner as recorded in Identity Card, Medical Report, Service Excerpt and other documents is 22.03.1956. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if, the petitioner succeed, he may be granted full back wages and salary along with other admissible benefits considering him as if, he was in continuous service. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, no date of birth has been recorded in the initial statutory Form B Register and in the year, 1987, the service excerpts of all workmen were being prepared and that time, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 22.03.1954. There is no objection regarding the said entry in the service excerpts by the petitioner. Based upon the entry in the service excerpt, the date of the petitioner has been entered in the NEIS as 22.03.1954. Learned counsel further submits that in terms of these two documents, the petitioner has attained 60 years of age on 22.03.2014 and therefore, he was superannuated on 31.03.2014. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 09.12.2013. There is no documentary evidence in support of his date of birth as 22.03.1956, the claim has been set out by the petitioner. 5. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 09.12.2013. There is no documentary evidence in support of his date of birth as 22.03.1956, the claim has been set out by the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and in view of the material on records, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. In compliance of the order dated 02.03.2017, supplementary counter-affidavit dated 27.03.2017 has been filed in which para 4 (III) it has been specifically mentioned that in service excerpts 22.03.1954/56 is not clear and in Form B of Lodna Colliery, the date-of-birth of the petitioner is recorded as 22.03.1956. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules and guidelines, I hereby direct the respondents to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the service record as per the entry of date of birth in Form B of Lodna Colliery. 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 Form B Register i.e. 22.03.1956. I hereby quashed the impugned notice of retirement dated 09.12.2013 issued by the respondent No. 4 Project Officer whereby the petitioner has been informed that he would retire from the services of the Company on completion of 60 years on 31.03.2014. The said notice is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law. 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 for the intervening period including the arrears of salary/allowances etc. and also his pension should be revised accordingly. The arrears of the salary shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands allowed.