JUDGMENT Yadav, J. -- 1. This appeal under section 2 (1) of the M. P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 24.4.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 10475/2013 and order dated 23.7.2018 passed in Review Petition No. 512/2017. 2. The controversy in writ petition related to correction of date of birth in service record. 3. The petitioner, a Mining Sirdar, initially appointed on 11.4.1975, was awarded Gas Testing Certificate on 17.6.1980 on his passing the examination and a Mining Sirdar Certificate on 27.11.1980 under the Mines Act, 1952; raised grievance against recording of his date of birth as 1.7.1953 in place of 2.1.1955 in his service book. The grievance was raised on the basis of School Leaving Certificate, Gas Testing Certificate and Mining Sirdar Certificate. The grievance stood resolved with the intervention of recognized Union vide Resolution No. 33 for deciding the dispute as per Implementation Instruction No. 76. However, non-decision by the employer led the petitioner file Writ Petition No. 10770/2012 which was disposed of on 28.1.2013 with the decision to the employer to decide the controversy in terms of clause B (i) (a) and (b) of the National Coal Wage Agreement III Implementation Instruction No. 76 dated 25.4.1988. In furtherance whereof, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Age Determination Committee on 15.3.2013. A reasoned order was passed on 13.6.2013, whereby the claim for change of date of birth was rejected for the reasons that Form B register, a statutory record of the Company, bears the signature of the petitioner as token of acceptance of date of birth as 1.7.1953 entered therein. The Gas Testing Certificate and Mining Sirdar Certificate came to be discarded on the ground that it does not bear the authentication by Manager as provided under clause B (i) (b) of the Implementation Instruction No. 76. 4. On its challenge in Writ Petition No. 10475/2013, the reasons arrived at by the Age Determination Committee, rejecting the Gas Testing Certificate and Mining Sirdar Certificate were faulted with by learned Single Judge on the findings bordering on clause B (i) (a) and (b) of Implementation Instruction No. 76 which mandates: “(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 recognized 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 recorded 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 Age Determination Committee / Medical Board. ….” 5. Learned Single Judge found the documents, viz., Gas Testing Certificate and Mining Sirdar Certificate to be within the ambit of clause B (i) (a) and (b) of the Implementation Instruction No. 76. And, further found that the consideration of petitioner’s case in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 10770/2012 was to be within the confines of the documents mentioned in clause B (i) (a) and (b). Dwelling on the contention of the employer that the certificate is to carry the authentication by the Mines Manager which was conspicuously absent therefrom, learned Single Judge found and observed that “when it is established that for issuing a Sirdar Certificate, the necessary information is provided through the prescribed form by the employer, whether or not it is specifically pleaded that in petitioner’s case also the same procedure is being followed, it will not make any difference. Putting it differently, once statute prescribed things to be done in a particular manner, i.e., by providing information by the employer in statutory form which contain signature of Mines Manager, it can be safely presumed and concluded in the case of petitioner also that such information must have been provided by the employer in the prescribed form which was pregnant with the signature of Mines Manager. Thus, the certificate (Annexure P/6) is a document on the strength of which petitioner’s date of birth should be ascertained and finalized.” 6. These findings are questioned by the appellant. 7. Contention on behalf of the appellant is that learned Single Judge erred in laying emphasis on Mining Sirdar Certificate as provided under clause B (i) (b) in place of documents which find mention in clause B (i) (a). These contentions when seen on the touchstone of proviso to sub-clause (i) (b) of clause B that where both documents mentioned in (i) (a) and (i) (b) are available, the date of birth recorded in (i) (a) will be treated as authentic, sounds attractive, is of no assistance as, in the present case, the correction of date of birth is not denied because of the documents which find mention in clause B (i) (a). The denial is on the basis of stipulation in clause C of the Implementation Instruction No. 76, which says that in case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in clause B (i) (a) or B (i) (b), the date of birth recorded in Form B register will be treated as final. Presently, it is not the case of the appellant that the date of birth could not have been determined on the basis of Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate, Middle Pass Certificate or admit cards issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Department of Public Instructions, Mining Sirdar Certificate or other statutory certificate. On the contrary, as per order passed in Writ Petition, the consideration was directed to be on the basis of stipulation in clause B (i) (a) or B (i) (b) and not on clause C of the Implementation Instruction No. 76. Learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in causing indulgence. 8. Further contention that the Mining Sirdar Certificate was not bearing the authentication by the Manager certifying the date of birth, also deserves to be discarded in view of the findings by learned Single Judge quoted supra that the employer being the custodian of service records and other information related to the workmen/employee and on the basis of information so furnished in the prescribed form, the ultimate Mining Sirdar Certificate is issued by the competent authority and in absence of any cogent material to establish the findings being perverse. 9. 9. In view whereof, since we do not perceive any error in the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, we decline indulgence. 10. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.