ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 08.06.2016, passed in Title Suit No. 61 of 2008 by the Civil judge (Senior Division No. 2), Ramgarh, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for directing the plaintiff for his medical examination in order to assess his actual date of birth has been allowed and he has been directed to be made medically examined by the Civil Surgeon, Ramgarh. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent herein, that he was appointed as an employee of Topa Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Limited and retired from services of the Company with effect from 31.03.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation as per his date of birth, as has been recorded in the various service excerpts as 04.03.1947, as per the claim made by the petitioner/respondents but the respondent/plaintiff being aggrieved with the action of the Management of the Central Coalfields Limited in superannuating the petitioner by an early date, he has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5747 of 2004 with a prayer to correct his date of birth, which was heard and disposed of vide order dated 20.11.2006 with a direction upon the respondent-Company to hold an enquiry and in the event, the contention of the petitioner is to be disagreed, it shall be by a reasoned order. The competent authority of the Management-CCL in compliance to the aforesaid order, passed by this Court has conducted an enquiry and vide order dated 18.04.2007, rejected the prayer of the petitioner and thereafter the respondent/plaintiff has again come to this Court by filing another writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2852 of 2007, wherein, the reasoned order dated 18.04.2007 was challenged with a further direction upon the respondents for treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.03.1956 but the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2008 and thereafter, a directory suit has been filed before the competent court of civil jurisdiction being Title Suit No. 61 of 2008 in which the petitioner/defendant has filed the written statement. The Respondent/plaintiff has filed a petition on 14.08.2015, praying therein, for constituting a Medical Board in order to ascertain the age of the plaintiff by the petitioner-Company. The Respondent/plaintiff has filed a petition on 14.08.2015, praying therein, for constituting a Medical Board in order to ascertain the age of the plaintiff by the petitioner-Company. The trial court having allowed the aforesaid Title Suit vide order dated 08.06.2016 against which the present writ petition has been preferred invoking the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Management has submitted that the trial court while passing the order dated 08.06.2016 has not appreciated the fact that the petition, which has been filed by the petitioner by which a new evidence has been sought to be brought on record by way of the opinion of the Medical Board and therefore, the same is not permissible, but without appreciating this aspect of the matter, the direction has been passed for constituting a Medical Board for assessing the date of birth of the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. His further submission is that the Central Coalfields Limited by way of the guidelines in the shape as Instruction no. 76, which contains the provision that in case of a dispute regarding the date of birth and if no other document i.e. the date of birth having been mentioned in the service excerpts of the Physical Examination Certificate, then only the Medical Board is to be constituted to ascertain the actual date of birth of one or the other employee. Herein, it is not the case of the plaintiff that there is any dispute regarding the wrong date of birth, rather, according to the petitioner/Management, in the service record of the Respondent/defendant, all along the date of birth was recorded as 04.03.1947 and therefore, having no dispute, the Instruction No.76 being not applicable, the trial court ought not to have constituted a Medical Board for ascertaining the date of birth of the petitioner. 4. While, on the other hand, Mr. 4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/plaintiff has submitted by referring to the counter affidavit that if the plea, which has been taken by the respondent that there is no dispute in the date of birth of the respondent herein, rather there was dispute, since beginning and which laid the respondent to approach this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5747 of 2004, wherein, this Court has directed for determining the date of birth of the petitioner, but the authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order on 18.04.2007, against which another writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2852 of 2007 has been filed but the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2008 with observation that if liberty was given in the contempt proceeding, he might have availed the liberty by moving appropriate forum in accordance with law for adjudication of his dispute, therefore, the writ Court has declared that no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the writ application and thereafter, a directory suit being Title Suit no. 61 of 2008 has been filed for the reliefs seeking a declaration of determination of his date of birth, as has been decided by the authority. His further submission is that in the counter affidavit filed by the Management before the High Court, the fact about the dispute of birth of the petitioner has been admitted and to that effect, specific statement has been made at paragraph 6 of the plaint, having been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition and therefore, in the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant, no specific denial to the statement made at paragraph 6 of the plaint has been made and therefore, the Court in order to adjudicate the issue has directed to constitute a Medical board under the leadership of the Civil Surgeon of the District. He has further submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the Medical Board has been constituted, who has submitted the Report, but, as yet the petitioner/Management has not challenged the same, even no objection to that effect has been made before the trial court and therefore, the order impugned, since has been, acted upon, may not be interfered with, otherwise, it will lead to no proper adjudication of the issue involved. 5. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, it is evident from the materials available on record that the petitioner has approached to this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, questioning the premature retirement, by treating his date of birth as 04.03.1947, in place of 04.03.1956 and therefore, he has been made to superannuate 9 years before. The Writ Court, without entering into the merit, has directed the authority to decide the claim in pursuance thereto, by passing an order, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, against which, the petitioner has approached this Court, in pursuance to the liberty granted by the Contempt Court in an order, passed in Cont. Case (C) No. 81 of 2007, but the second Writ petition has been dismissed making therein, observation that the liberty was given in the contempt proceeding, he ought to have availed the liberty by moving appropriate forum in accordance with law for adjudication of his dispute and accordingly, dismissed the writ application. The petitioner, thereafter, has invoked the jurisdiction of the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for adjudicating the dispute by filing a directory suit being Title Suit No. 61 of 2008. It is evident from the statement made in the plaint, more particularly at paragraph 6 thereof that in the counter affidavit, filed by the petitioner/Management in W.P. (S) No. 5747 of 2004, in the remarks column of service book, wherein, the petitioner has disputed the date of birth, as has been inserted therein, at the time of nationalization of the colliery. It has further been stated at paragraph no. 13, as has been stated at paragraph 6 of the plaint that the defendants after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate decision for correction through the Medical Board. The same, according to the plaintiff/respondents, since has not been followed, therefore, by not constituting a Medical Board for the same and hence, the dispute has not been properly adjudicated, therefore, the prayer has been made for determination of the dispute over his age. It is evident that a written statement has been filed by the petitioner/Management, as has been annexed by way of supplementary affidavit, but no specific denial at paragraph 6 of the plaint has been made. 6. It is evident that a written statement has been filed by the petitioner/Management, as has been annexed by way of supplementary affidavit, but no specific denial at paragraph 6 of the plaint has been made. 6. The Respondent/plaintiff has filed a petition in the aforesaid suit on 14.08.2015, mentioning therein, in view of the assurance given by the management, as has been stated at paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P. (S) No. 5747 of 2004, as has been reflected at paragraph 6 to the pleading, since no Medical Board has been constituted, as yet, therefore, the prayer was made therein, to constitute the Medical Board. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties and going across the record, has directed for constituting a Medical Board under the leadership of the Civil Surgeon, Ramgarh. 7. The said order has been assailed by the petitioner/Management on the ground that the trial court should not allow the plaintiff to bring on record further evidence and further, there is no discrepancy in the date of birth, as has been claimed by the respondent/plaintiff. 8. The submission/ground, which has been made by the petitioner-Management, prima facie seems to be not correct in view of the specific stand taken by the respondent at paragraph 6 to the counter affidavit as has been referred in the plaint of Title Suit No. 61 of 2008, which is being referred hereinbelow:- “6. That the defendants in para 11 of their counter Affidavit filed in the W.P. (S) No. 5747/04 have admitted that the plaintiff in the remark column of service book has written that wrong date of birth has been written in the service book of the plaintiff who was taken over employee on Nationalisation of Colliery. The defendants also sworn in the last 4 lines of para 13 of their counter Affidavit that the defendants after being satisfied on the merit of the case will take appropriate action for correction through determination/Committee/Medical Board, which has not been followed till date even on repeated request of plaintiff to constitute Medical Board for the same. The defendants also sworn in the last 4 lines of para 13 of their counter Affidavit that the defendants after being satisfied on the merit of the case will take appropriate action for correction through determination/Committee/Medical Board, which has not been followed till date even on repeated request of plaintiff to constitute Medical Board for the same. Therefore, merit of plaintiff’s case till the date of filing of Counter Affidavit on behalf of the defendants in W.P. (S) No. 5747/2004 remained intact till date when they opened line of consideration and determination of date of birth of the plaintiff also through Medical Board then why they did not take report/help of Medical Board the defendant kept mum on this point which was only request of the plaintiff through out.” 9. In view of the aforesaid statement having not been disputed/denied in the written statement, the trial court by constituting a Medical Board has not committed any illegality. In view of the aforesaid statement having not been disputed/denied in the written statement, the trial court by constituting a Medical Board has not committed any illegality. Further contention that the condition stipulated in the Instruction No.76 is not applicable on the basis that there is no dispute by the plaintiff/respondent, as would be available from the records pertaining to the service records of the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the Instruction No. 76 speaks for constituting a Medical Board, if it will not be ascertained either through the School Leaving Certificates/or the Board Certificate/Higher Secondary School Certificate/or Form ‘B’ Register, wherein, it has been contended by the petitioner/Management that there is no discrepancy in the Form ‘B’ Register, as would be evident from paragraph 6 of the pleading, having not been denied by the petitioner/Management, wherein, the reference of the counter affidavit filed in W.P. (S) No. 5747 of 2004 has been made, wherein, the management has specifically came out with a stand that in order to determine the date of birth, which is to be determined, a Committee/Medical Board be constituted, but what laid the petitioner to make statement in the counter affidavit, is not clarified either by the learned counsel for the petitioner in course of argument or even by the written statement, therefore, according to the considered view of this Court, when the stand has been taken by the Management before the Higher Forum i.e. the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the effect for correction in the date of birth would be made through determination/Committee/Medical Board but the said undertaking has never been complied with and in that pretext, the petitioner has filed a petition in the Suit for seeking a direction to constitute the Medical Board and in pursuance thereto, after looking to the factual aspect at paragraph 6 of the plaint, wherein, reference of the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner/Management has been made, has directed to constitute the Medical Board and therefore, the trial court dismissed the suit with observation that there is dispute over the date of birth of the petitioner, as has been agitated by the petitioner and therefore, the trial court after considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter has directed to constitute a Medical Board in order to come to the right conclusion, as such it cannot be said to be an improper order, rather the trial court has exercised the said power for resolving the dispute hence, according to the considered view of this Court, there is no infirmity in the same and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the said report of the Medical Board, he is at liberty to make an objection to that effect, as has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that, as yet, no objection has been made. 10. In view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances and according to the considered view of this Court, the impugned order is not in the nature, warranting any interference by the High Court sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since there is no error apparent, on the face of the record. 11. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.