JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for setting aside the memorandum of settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the management, whereby the respondent even after accepting the date of birth of the petitioner as 06.04.1954 made the petitioner to accept a condition wherein he agreed to retire on 31.10.2013 even before attaining the age of 60 years and for quashing letter dated 14.05.2013 whereby the project officer Alkusa Colliery issued an order directing the petitioner to retire by 31.10.2013 and also for direction upon the petitioner to allow the petitioner till the completion of his statutory age of superannuation and extend all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per matriculation certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 06.04.1954 but due to wrong entry made in the petitioner’s service excerpts and NEIS as 06.04.1952, the petitioner was made to retire on 30.04.2012. It has further been submitted that petitioner raised industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central, Dhanbad, who in turn while dealing with the matter sent the matriculation certificate for verification before Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, which sent a report wherein it has categorically been mentioned that the date of birth of the petitioner is 06.04.1954 and in such view of the matter, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad directed respondents to do the needful treating his date of birth as shown in the matriculation certificate. But, in the meantime, the petitioner under the duress was forced to sign a memorandum of settlement wherein the petitioner was forced to withdraw all age dispute matter from every Court of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no provision in the service condition or in the national coal wages agreement contemplating a workman to continue in service for 42 years or till attaining the age of 60 years. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision rendered in the case of Hari B.P Vs. BCCL & Ors passed in L.P.A. No. 397 of 2015 and also in the case of Sri Lerha Harijan Vs. BCCL & Ors passed in W.P (S) No. 7052 of 2011. 3. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision rendered in the case of Hari B.P Vs. BCCL & Ors passed in L.P.A. No. 397 of 2015 and also in the case of Sri Lerha Harijan Vs. BCCL & Ors passed in W.P (S) No. 7052 of 2011. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ application by advancing an argument that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal, which he can raise before Industrial Tribunal. On the merit of the case, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the time of joining the services, the petitioner never submitted matriculation certificate hence, the date of birth recorded in all statutory forms of the company has binding effect. Furthermore, it is the petitioner, who voluntarily agreed to enter into a settlement to bring the end to Industrial Dispute and agreed to forgo the back wages for the idle period and such agreement/settlement between the parties has binding effect and each party has to go by the settlement. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents referred to a decision rendered in the case of State of Uttranchal Vs. Jagpal Singh Tyagi as reported in (2005) 8 SCC 49 . 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of record, there is no shadow of doubt that as per matriculation certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 06.04.1954 and immediately after coming to know that there is wrong entry in his service excerpts, the petitioner raised Industrial dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner, on whose direction, the matriculation certificate was sent for verification and the same was found to be genuine. From the averments made in the respective affidavits, it is apparent that it was well within the knowledge of the respondents-authority that the matriculation certificate of the petitioner was sent for verification, but, under the compelling circumstances as the petitioner was at the verge of retirement entered into settlement and moreover, the respondent-BCCL, being the employer, was in bargaining and dominating position whereas, the petitioner had no other option but to sign the dotted lines. Furthermore, it is nowhere the case of the respondents that the petitioner passed the matriculation examination during service leaving room for doubt that the petitioner had at any point of time had any intention to submit wrong date of birth. Hence, the plea taken by the respondents that the dispute was amicably resolved by signing the memorandum of settlement dated 28.02.2013 is de-hors the principle of fairness in action. In such peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that memorandum of settlement dated 28.02.2013 cannot be given effect to and is liable to quashed and set aside. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Hari B.P (supra) 5. Furthermore, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the settlement entered into between the parties cannot belie the fact that the matriculation certificate of the petitioner was genuine one and further it is well settled proposition, which has been enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that in case of date of birth dispute, the matriculation certificate is conclusive piece of document. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the memorandum of settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the management vide Annexure 5 to the writ application is hereby quashed and set aside and petitioner is treated to be in service till 30.04.2014 i.e. till he attained the age of superannuation of 60 years treating his date of birth as mentioned in matriculation certificate i.e. 06.04.1954. Resultantly, the respondents-BCCL is directed to extend all consequential benefits. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.