JUDGMENT : APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The correctness and legality of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4309 of 2007 dated 20th May, 2009 is assailed by the aggrieved respondent in the present appeal. 3. Since the order impugned is brief and also refers to the case of the parties, we reproduce it hereunder for the convenience sake. "In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing letter No. 7/207 dated 26.5.2007 whereby and where under the notice of superannuation has been served on the petitioner. The petitioner further prays for quashing the aforesaid impugned letter dated 26.5.2007 and further pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work till completion of 60 years taking into consideration the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner is 12.4.1954. The present matter relates to dispute with regard to age. The claim of the petitioner is that he born on 12.4.1954 whereas the respondent Coal company submits that as per Form-B register age mentioned in 01.10.1947. The petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-2 which is at page-22 from the service excerpts which is dated 2.8.1987 wherein the date of birth at column 6 is recorded as 1.10.47 and date of appointment is recorded as 1.10.71 however, an objection to that has also been recorded based on the matriculation certificate which has also been produced in which the date of birth is recorded as 12.4.54. The matriculation certificate is annexed at page 21. Another document which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is dated 14.1.06 which is annexed at Annexure-3 issued by the Personnel Manger wherein the petitioner along with some other employees were called to go for a medical check up for determination of their age in which the Personnel Manger on behalf of the respondents admits that there was dispute with regard to the age and date of birth. As per instruction 76 which is applicable and binding on the respondents, it is well settled that the matriculation certificate is the best document which can be adhered to and relied upon and this issue has been conclusively decided by a Full Bench in 2007 (3) JCR 681 (Kamta Pandey v. M/s B.C.C.L through Chairman-cum-Manging Director, Dhanbad & Ors.). As per instruction 76 which is applicable and binding on the respondents, it is well settled that the matriculation certificate is the best document which can be adhered to and relied upon and this issue has been conclusively decided by a Full Bench in 2007 (3) JCR 681 (Kamta Pandey v. M/s B.C.C.L through Chairman-cum-Manging Director, Dhanbad & Ors.). Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie I find substance in the writ petition more so when the Management itself felt the need for a medical check up and thus it will be in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to immediately send the petitioner for a medical check up and/or get the matriculation certificate verified from Bihar School Examination Board within a period of four months and if it is found to be authentic the relief prayed for has to be granted in the light of Full Bench (supra) judgment. Let a decision in this regard be taken within a period of two months. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction." 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that two documents which are part of the counter affidavit filed before the Writ Court i.e, Annexure-A being the old statutory Form-B Register of Ghanudih Colliery and Annexure-B new Form-B Register of the same Ghanudih Colliery prepared in statutory compliance of the provisions of Mines Act, have not been taken into account in proper perspective by learned Single Judge. 5. From the connected records and Annexure-A to the counter affidavit against name of the petitioner the date of birth 1st October, 1947 and date of employment 11th October, 1971 is entered. The employee's signature is at column No. 11. However, the instant document does not contain any reference of date on which it was prepared, nor does it contain any column related to the educational qualification. Annexure-B to the counter affidavit captioned Form-B prepared under Rules 48, 51, 77, 77-A (2) with a serial No. 848 also shows the age of the petitioner/respondent herein as 1st October, 1947 and at column No. 16 his signature. There is no column relating to the educational qualification in those Forms either. The date of preparation of Form-B (Annexure-B) is also not evident from the record. There is no column relating to the educational qualification in those Forms either. The date of preparation of Form-B (Annexure-B) is also not evident from the record. Compared to these two documents, the documents relied upon by the petitioner (Annexure 2) prepared on 2nd August, 1987 being service extract shows his date of birth as 1st October, 1947, date of appointment as 11th October, 1971 and educational qualification at column No. 7 as matriculation. There is an objection endorsed by the petitioner at the bottom to the effect that date of birth entry in Form-B is 1st October, 1947 is incorrect as his matriculation certificate bears correct date of birth 16th April, 1954. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Pyare Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 3 JCR 679 , which has also considered the Full Bench Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey v. M/s. B.C.C.L through Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad & Ors. 2007 (3) JCR 681 (Jhr.) [ 2007 (3) JLJR 726 (FB)], that of the Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v. Bajrangi Rabidas (2013) 4 JLJR SC 467 and in the case of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. v. Chhota Birsa Uranw (2014) 3 JBCJ 28 (S.C.) 2014 (3) JLJR (SC) 182] 7. The thrust of the submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that once the petitioner had failed to disclose the matriculation certificate at the time of entry in service in October, 1971 and never raised these disputes till fag-end of service, only on issuance of superannuation notice dated 26th May, 2007, such a plea should not have been entertained by learned Writ Court. The ratio rendered by Division Bench in the case of Ram Pyare Singh (Supra), therefore, applies on all fours to the case of the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed the documents also referred to hereinabove. He has also placed reliance on Implementation Instruction No. 76 prepared under National Coal Wage Agreement, which lays down the procedure for determination/verification of age of employees. 8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed the documents also referred to hereinabove. He has also placed reliance on Implementation Instruction No. 76 prepared under National Coal Wage Agreement, which lays down the procedure for determination/verification of age of employees. He has laid emphasis on the procedure relating to 'Review Determination of Date of Birth in respect of Existing Employees.' Learned counsel submits that learned Single Judge did not finally determine the issue relating to correct date of birth but only directed the respondent BCCL to take a decision in the matter after obtaining opinion from the Medical Board and verification of the matriculation certificate from the Bihar School Examination Board. Learned Single Judge was persuaded by the direction of Personnel Manager contained in Annexure-3 letter dated 14th January, 2006, whereby the petitioner and some other employees were called upon to go for a medical check up for determination of their age. This exercise was not carried out by the respondent employer, instead superannuation notice was issued on 26th May, 2007 intimating the petitioner of his impending retirement i.e., 1st October, 2007. Therefore, there are subtle differences in the case of the petitioner with that of the case of Ram Pyare Singh (Supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants herein. The direction has not yet been carried out despite there being no stay on the impugned judgment. If the directions were carried out, the matter would have authoritatively reached a quietus much earlier. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others v. Chhota Birsa Uranw (2014) 12 SCC 570 .[:2014 (3) JLJR (SC) 182 Referring to para 12 of the report, he submits that despite the fact that employer was in conscious knowledge of the discrepancy in the date of birth as recorded in the service extract in 1987, it did not venture to rectify it till a decision was taken vide Annexure-3 dated 14th January, 2006 just one and half years before his recorded date of retirement to determine the correct age of the employee. Had it been done in terms of their own regulation i.e., Implementation Instruction No. 76, it could have settled the matter. 10. Had it been done in terms of their own regulation i.e., Implementation Instruction No. 76, it could have settled the matter. 10. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of Implementation Instruction No. 76 hereunder relating to review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees: "(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. (i)(a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognised Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment. (i)(b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i) (a) and (i) (b) above are available, the date of birth record in (i) (a) will be treated as authentic. (ii) 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 merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Determination Committee/Medical Board. (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) abode, the date of birth recorded in the records of the company, namely, Form-B register. CMPF Records and Identity Cards (un-tempered) will be treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation, in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be refereed to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board constituted by the Management for determination of age. (D) For determination of the age, the Committee/Medical Board referred to above may consider the evidences, available with the Colliery Management and/or adduced before the employee concerned. (E) Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to asses the age in accordance with the requirement of "Medical Jurisprudence" and the Medical Board will as for as possible indicate the accurate age assessed and not approximately." 11. (E) Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to asses the age in accordance with the requirement of "Medical Jurisprudence" and the Medical Board will as for as possible indicate the accurate age assessed and not approximately." 11. As observed hereinabove, Annexures-A and B relied upon by the respondent/appellant herein does not show the date on which those documents were created neither do they contain any column for educational qualification. The whole case of the appellants is based upon these two documents that the employee failed to disclose his educational qualification at the time of entry in service. The only documents undisputed by both the parties is Annexure-2 i.e., the service extract prepared in 1987 which contains the date of birth 1st October, 1947. It refers to the educational qualification of the employee as matriculation and contains the objection of the employee on the date of birth entry. The matriculation certificate (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) shows his date of birth as 12th April, 1954 having passed out in April, 1971 in 3rd Division from S.S.D High School, Rupas Mahaji under Bihar School Examination Board. The ratio laid down by learned Division Bench of this court in the case of Ram Pyare Singh (Supra) after referring to and relying upon the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court and the Apex Court deal with the facts and circumstances of a case where admittedly the employee had not produced matriculation certificate at the first instance. The facts of the present case are distinct in one important aspect as in the present case the employer itself has directed the employee petitioner and some others by a letter dated 14th January, 2006 (Annexure-B) to undergo age determination by a Medical Board in view of the variation in age in the service record and the certificate produced by them. Learned Single Judge in those circumstances was right in directing the management to immediately send the petitioner for a medical check up and get the matriculation certificate verified from the Bihar School Examination Board within the stipulated period. 12. The writ petition was filed on 1st August, 2007 after issuance of superannuation notice and before the stipulated date of retirement i.e. 1st October, 2007. The petitioner definitely had got a cause of action in this background to approach the writ court. 12. The writ petition was filed on 1st August, 2007 after issuance of superannuation notice and before the stipulated date of retirement i.e. 1st October, 2007. The petitioner definitely had got a cause of action in this background to approach the writ court. Had the direction been carried out, the issue could have been authoritatively settled much before. Though there has been no stay on the impugned direction in the present appeal, but for strange reasons, the appellants have not carried out the direction. Considering all these facts and circumstances and for the discussions made above, we do not find any such error in the impugned order which deserves interference in the appellate jurisdiction. The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.