JUDGMENT 1. The Court : This appeal is directed against an order dated 24 th December, 2019 passed in a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging an order of superannuation on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his service record. The petitioner was an employee of the Eastern Coal Fields Limited. On 15 th October, 2015 the writ petitioner made a representation to several officers of the respondent coal company alleging that on 13 th October, 2015 he came to learn from one of his colleagues of the concerned department that the year of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the service record is 1956 and on enquiry it was found that such date was an incorrect recording. The writ petitioner alleged that it was a prevalent practice in the company that all the employees were to sign in the blank format of the service record which is subsequently filled up by the personnel department. The appellant did not notice earlier about the incorrect recording of the date of birth and it was only during October, 2015 he could ascertain that the service record did not reflect the correct date of birth. The said representation, however, does not disclose the circumstances under which he had ascertained such facts but we presume for the time being that he was told that his service would be superannuated on and from 1 st July, 2016 and he could have been invited to fill up certain forms in order to enable his employer to complete the formalities in the meantime. The final order of 24 th December, 2019 was preceded by two orders passed on 29 th June, 2016 and 3 rd August, 2016. We would refer to the said two orders later as we feel that it is also necessary for us to indicate the facts in a nutshell so as to find out if at all the writ petitioner could claim such reliefs irrespective of the quality of orders preceding the final order. The petitioner joined the service of the Eastern Coal Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) on 1 st April, 1980. Based on the information furnished by the writ petitioner, appointment letter was issued on 1 st April, 1980 in which it has been specifically stated that his superannuation age would be 60 years. The petitioner joined the service of the Eastern Coal Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) on 1 st April, 1980. Based on the information furnished by the writ petitioner, appointment letter was issued on 1 st April, 1980 in which it has been specifically stated that his superannuation age would be 60 years. The writ petitioner during his course of employment had executed various documents for availing the service benefits. Under Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1958 ECL, as employer, is required to maintain a register of persons employed and relevant entries of such employees to be duly authenticated by their signature or thumb impression, as the case may be. Form-B register is a statutory record which is maintained under the Mines Act, 1952. The service record of the employee is also created on his appointment and it is continued till the cessation of employment. Photo identity cards are also issued by the employer for identification or giving proper identity to the employees. During 1987 there was an effort by ECL to provide important excerpts of service record to the employees inviting their comments about such information. The employee concerned was also given two copies of such service record excerpts and the employee is required to return the said copies after filling up the details including the date of appointment and the date of birth. In the year 1998-1999 for the existing employees on roll as on 1 st April, 1998 and who were members of the Coal Mines Family Pension, 1971 in terms of paragraph 5(1) of Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, an employee is required to submit his family declaration in Form no.PS-3 and nomination in Form no.PS-4. The Form-B disclosed by the employer in the proceedings before the learned Trial Judge bears a signature of the petitioner in which the petitioner has recorded his date of birth as 1956 and has duly signed the said form as an acceptance of the statements and/or declarations contained in the said forms. His date of commencement of employment was recorded on 28 th October, 1978 and his date of retirement was recorded as 2016. The service register of the petitioner also records his date of appointment as 28 th October, 1978 and his date of birth as 1956 duly signed by him as token of acceptance. His date of commencement of employment was recorded on 28 th October, 1978 and his date of retirement was recorded as 2016. The service register of the petitioner also records his date of appointment as 28 th October, 1978 and his date of birth as 1956 duly signed by him as token of acceptance. In Form PS-3 and PS-4, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 1 st July, 1956 duly declared by him with the signature of the petitioner. The Coal Mines Provident Fund Account of the petitioner was opened sometimes in the year 1978-79. The Regional Commissioner, Provident Fund, Asansol by letter dated 6 th August, 1979 had sent relevant information and records with regard to provident fund account of the petitioner. The coal company had also paid a sum of Rs.235.84 in the Coal Mines Provident Fund of the petitioner for the financial year 1979-80. 2. In the proceeding before us the writ petitioner has relied upon the admit card issued to him in the year 1981 and also the identity card issued to him on 1 st September, 2006. The contention of the writ petitioner is that the said two documents would conclusively prove that he was born in 1961 and accordingly his year of superannuation would be 2021. Significantly, the documents showing his date of birth as 1956 in large number of documents and declaration forming part of the service record of the writ petitioner was not given due importance while passing the interim orders and in directing medical examination of the writ petitioner. One of the learned Single Judges hearing the matter had directed medical examination of the writ petitioner in order to do substantial justice and on consideration if it is found on medical examination that there was an error or a genuine error committed by the petitioner in not ventilating his grievance earlier, the service of the writ petitioner may not be terminated taking into consideration the unblemished service record of the writ petitioner. It appears that on 29 th June, 2016 at the time when the writ petition was moved Justice Banerjee, while noticing that the writ petitioner had approached the Court at the last month, stayed the notice of superannuation upon accepting the submission of the writ petitioner that he was not aware of the existing record where his age was incorrectly recorded as 1956 prior to October, 2015 and as is reflected from Justice Banerjees order when His Lordship has observed 'when the petitioner claims that he had no whiff of the mistake and came to be aware thereof only after receiving the notice of superannuation, the facts need to be looked into.' However, the petitioner was restrained from reporting to duty after 12 th July, 2016. On 3 rd August, 2016 the matter was heard by Justice Dipankar Datta. Although His Lordship has recorded that the petitioner had approached the Court belatedly, however, following the decision of the Honble Division Bench in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Chandmoni Majhin dated 20 th June, 2016, directed determination of the age of the petitioner in accordance with instruction 76 of the procedure for determination/verification of age of employees. The writ petitioner invited the Court to pass the aforesaid order having an impression that the said decision would be beneficial to him. The writ petitioner did not object to constitution of the medical board in terms of instruction-76 although it was known to him that the medical board would be constituted of the medical officers who are also in employment of ECL. 3. The medical board returned the finding which goes against the contention of the petitioner that he would not be 60 years old in 2016. The appellant/writ petitioner took exception to the said report and in support thereof had relied upon two reports of two medical practitioners who claimed to have given the report after examining the writ petitioner showing that the writ petitioner would be between 45 and 50 years on the date of examination. 4. The appellant/writ petitioner also appears to have contended before the learned Single Judge that the date of birth of his full-blood elder brother, who is also an employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited, is 22 nd February, 1956, whereas his date of birth has been recorded as July, 1956 which is practically impossible. 5. 4. The appellant/writ petitioner also appears to have contended before the learned Single Judge that the date of birth of his full-blood elder brother, who is also an employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited, is 22 nd February, 1956, whereas his date of birth has been recorded as July, 1956 which is practically impossible. 5. The appellant before us, in support of his contention that the admit card would be sacrosanct for the purpose of determining his age of retirement and irrespective of the fact that the service records may show otherwise, has relied upon a Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 2014(SC) 1975 : 2014(12) SCC 570 (M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw) . 6. Mr. Tilak Bose, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the coal company, has submitted that the appellant has approached the Court at the fag end of his career knowing fully well that the service record maintained over the period of time by the employer coal company would unmistakably show that the date of birth of the employee is 1956 and not 1961 and there has been no contemporaneous challenge to the recording of such facts in the service record as well as in various other statutory forms wherever the mentioning of date of birth is essential. With regard to the reliance made on the admit card, Mr. Bose has submitted that the admit card is issued in the year 1981 subsequent to the joining of the writ petitioner in service and as per the Implementation Instruction No.76B(i)(a), the date of birth written in Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate or on Admit Card issued by the University or Secondary Board should be treated as correct provided the same is issued prior to the date appointment of the candidate. Mr. Bose has drawn our attention to paragraph 3(xiv) of the affidavit-in-opposition in which reference was made to a recent judgment of this Honble Court dated 31 st March, 2016 in WP No.7925(W) of 2010, Asto Ghosh vs. ECL & Ors. It is submitted that the identity card relied upon by the writ petitioner does not bear the signature of the writ petitioner. It is submitted that the identity card relied upon by the writ petitioner does not bear the signature of the writ petitioner. Moreover, if it is assumed that the date of birth of the appellant is 3 rd January, 1961 then on the date of appointment i.e., on 8 th October, 1978, the writ petitioner would be about 17 years of age i.e., a minor, which is not permissible under the Mines Act. 7. The three documents relied upon by the writ petitioner in support of his date of birth as 3 rd January, 1961 and not in the year 1956, namely, the school leaving certificate dated 4 th March, 2016, certificate issued by the headmaster of the school in his favour on 23 rd April, 2016 and the admit card issued in his favour by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education wherein his date of birth has been recorded as 3 rd January, 1961 has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the following manner:- 'On a close perusal of the aforesaid three documents it appears that the headmaster of the school in the certificate dated 23 rd April, 2016 certifies that the petitioner was a bona fide student of class-X in the year 1979. He appeared in the Madhyamik examination in the year 1979 and failed and he again appeared in the Madhyamik examination in the year 1980. The school leaving/character certificate issued by the same headmaster on 4 th March, 2016 mentions that the petitioner was a bona fide student of class-X in the year 1977. The portion where it is mentioned that he appeared/passed/failed in the Madhyamik examination has been struck off which indicates that the petitioner never appeared as the candidate of the school in the Madhyamik examination. The admit card issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education at page 27 of the writ petition is for the year 1981. The petitioner has not annexed any document to show that he appeared in the Madhyamik examination in the year 1979 and 1980 as mentioned in the certificate of the headmaster at page 29 of the writ petition. the headmaster curiously does not certify that the petitioner appeared in the Madhyamik examination in the year 1981. He only mentions about class-IX in the year 1977 and the Madhyamik examination for the years 1979 and 1980. the headmaster curiously does not certify that the petitioner appeared in the Madhyamik examination in the year 1981. He only mentions about class-IX in the year 1977 and the Madhyamik examination for the years 1979 and 1980. The petitioner has not come up with any other contemporaneous document in support of his date of birth. As the educational certificates relied upon by the petitioner is apparently contradictory to each other, no reliance can be placed on the same.' 8. Considering the relevant materials on record, we can only concur with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in this regard. In respect of the medical examination report, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the report of the medical board of ECL and also two reports relied upon by the writ petitioner. 9. The writ petitioner, in support of his contention that he could not be 60 years of age in 2016, has relied upon the medical examination report issued in his favour by one Mr. B.P. Mohanty dated 4 th September, 2016 and a Medical Officer, Sub- Divisional Hospital, Durgapur dated 26 th September, 2016. Both the doctors, on skeletal survey, certified that the assessed age of the petitioner is about 45 to 50 years. Before the Government Hospital the petitioner has himself declared his age as 54 years whereas the certificate issued by the medical officer mentions the age of the petitioner as 45 to 50 years. Accordingly, the certificate of the medical officer of the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Durgapur and the certificate issued by Dr. B.P. Mohanty are erroneous at the face of the record and cannot be relied upon. The absurdity of the claim of the petitioner that his date of birth is 1956 and not 1961 has been meticulously and correctly analysed by the learned Single Judge in the following words:- 'Before the Apex Medical Board on 24 th August, 2016 the petitioner voluntarily declared his age as fifty five years six months and his wifes age as 48 years, i.e his wife is seven years younger to him. He declared that he was married at the age of 24 years. The age of his eldest daughter is 30 years. He declared that he was married at the age of 24 years. The age of his eldest daughter is 30 years. Arithmetical calculation will reveal that the age of the petitioner as disclosed by him will be approximately 24 + 30 = 54 years + 10 months 10 days gestation period = 54 years 10 months. Assuming that the age assessed by the medical officer of the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Durgapur is correct then the age of the petitioner in December, 2016 is 45 to 50 years and the age of his daughter is 30 years. i.e. the age difference between the father and the daughter is fifteen years. By simple mathematical calculation it means that the petitioner gave birth to his daughter when he was 15 years or at best 20 years of age and at the time of birth of the child his wife was 15-7= 8 years or 20-7= 13 years. The petitioner has declared that he was married at the age of 24 years which means that the age assessed by the medical officer and the private doctor is absurd and absolutely improbable. If the age of the petitioner mentioned in the two certificates is taken as correct then by mathematical calculation the date of birth of the petitioner will be either 1971 (2016 - 45 = 1971) or 1966 (2016 - 50 = 1966), whereas the petitioner himself disclosed that his year of birth is 1961, which means that the said certificates cannot be relied upon. The figures hereinabove indicates that the petitioner time and again has tried to change and amend his date of birth as per his convenience.' 10. As observed earlier, the service register of the petitioner records his year of birth as 1956. When the petitioner collected the provident fund dues in the year 2001, the relevant record shows his date of birth as 1 st July, 1956. He filled up the nomination form in 2003 wherein his date of birth has been recorded as 1 st July, 1956. At every stage it was open for the petitioner to seek a change in the service record. In a fairly recent judgment dated 5 th February, 2020 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. Vs. At every stage it was open for the petitioner to seek a change in the service record. In a fairly recent judgment dated 5 th February, 2020 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, the Honble Supreme Court has reiterated that a change sought in the service record cannot be entertained at the fag end of the service after accepting the date of birth to be correct during the entire service period. The judgment of Chhota Birsa Uranw (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Ghosh was distinguished in paragraph 11 which reads as follows:- '11. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has relied upon the decision of this Court relating the very same employer namely, the appellants herein in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. vs. Chhota Birasa Uranw (2014) 12 SCC 570 wherein this Court with reference to the earlier decisions of this Court has upheld the order of the High Court wherein a direction had been issued to effect the change in the date of birth. Having perused the same we are of the opinion that the said decision cannot render assistance to the respondent herein. This is for the reason that in the said case it was taken note that in 1987 on implementation of the National Coal Wage Agreement (iii) was put into operation for stabilising the service records of the employees and all its employees were provided a chance to identify and rectify the discrepancies in the service records by providing them a nomination form containing details of their service records. In the cited case the respondent (employee) therein had noticed the inconsistencies in the records regarding his date of birth, date of appointment, fathers name and permanent address and availed the opportunity to seek correction. Though he had sought for the correction of the errors, the other discrepancies were set right but the date of birth and the date of appointment had however remained unchanged and it is in that view the employee had again raised a dispute regarding the same and the judicial remedy was sought wherein the benefit was extended to him.' 11. Though he had sought for the correction of the errors, the other discrepancies were set right but the date of birth and the date of appointment had however remained unchanged and it is in that view the employee had again raised a dispute regarding the same and the judicial remedy was sought wherein the benefit was extended to him.' 11. It was only more than 35 years from the date of his joining service, for the first time in the year 2015 that the writ petitioner made a representation for correcting his date of birth. The statutory forms as well as the nomination form disclosed by the ECL in their affidavit-in-opposition clearly show that since 1987 the petitioner had the opportunity to seek rectification of the date of birth had it been erroneously recorded. On such considerations, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. The appeal and the application accordingly stand dismissed. 13. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 14. In view of the fact that the ECL has accepted the date of birth of the appellant/writ petitioner as 1 st July, 1956, all retiral benefits shall be released to the writ petitioner within four weeks from date, treating his date of retirement as 1 st July, 2016.