JUDGMENT : I.A. No.4885 of 2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.4885 of 2014 has been preferred with a prayer for fixing an early date of hearing. 3. Since the matter has been listed today for hearing as such, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.4885 of 2014 stands dismissed as infructuous. W.P.(S) No.1912 of 2009 4. With consent of the parties, this writ application has been taken up today for hearing. 5. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in Memo No.1503 dated 08.07.2007, whereby the respondents have issued a letter of superannuation to the petitioner on 01.01.2008 on the basis of his date of birth considering as 01.01.1948. The petitioner had further prayed for a direction upon the respondent to give arrears of salary as well as current salary from the month of January, 2008 to October, 2010 as he was supposed to retire on 07.10.2010. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-7 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, which is service excerpts wherein there is cutting in the date of birth. He further submits that by going through this document it is apparent that somebody has manipulated with his date of birth. He further submits that the correction in the service excerpt creates doubt of manipulation which is further corroborated by the fact that in the identity card also his date of birth is mentioned as 07.10.1950 which was originally mentioned in Annexure-7 before its correction. As such his prayer may be allowed and the impugned letter should be quashed and all consequential benefits should be extended to this petitioner. 7. Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-Company draws attention of this Court towards the Form-B register and submits that Annexure-B to the counter affidavit is the original Form-B register which was maintained prior to nationalization of the coal mines which clearly transpires that the age of the petitioner was 25 years as on 01.01.1973. The said old Form-B register further transpires that the petitioner had duly signed in the said register. Mr. The said old Form-B register further transpires that the petitioner had duly signed in the said register. Mr. Mehta further draws attention of this Court towards the new Form-B register wherein the petitioner was shown as 25 years as on 01.01.1973, which is the same date which was mentioned in the original Form-B register prior to nationalization of coal mines and in this Form B Register also the petitioner had duly signed. He further contended that now the law is no more res-integra that Form-B register being the statutory register has to be taken into consideration in case of any dispute. He further submits that the date of birth mentioned in the identity card cannot be relied upon in view of the admitted fact that in both the Form-B register the petitioner has duly signed after verification. So far as contention of the petitioner with respect to manipulation etc. is concerned, the same is misconceived, inasmuch as, the said service excerpt is a form of letter which was issued to the petitioner for the purpose of giving details of his family members. It further transpires that after cutting; there is no endorsement of any person, as such the same cannot be taken into consideration over and above the statutory Form-B register. Moreover, it is also settled law that for any disputed question of fact the appropriate form is not the Writ Court. He concluded his argument by submitting that even after retirement; the petitioner waited for more than a year in challenging the said order which goes to show that filing of the instant writ application is an afterthought. In order to buttress his argument he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 and also the judgment delivered in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Ram Samugh Yadav & Ors. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 421 . Relying upon the aforesaid judgments and the admitted factual position he submits that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 and also the judgment delivered in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Ram Samugh Yadav & Ors. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 421 . Relying upon the aforesaid judgments and the admitted factual position he submits that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits, it appears that in the original Form-B register which was filled up prior to the coal nationalization before the erstwhile coal company, the age of petitioner has been mentioned as 25 years as on 01.01.1973 and in the said original Form-B register the petitioner had duly signed and accepted the same. Subsequently after the coal nationalization, new Form-B register was prepared indicating the same age and same year of appointment and in the subsequent Form-B register also the petitioner had duly signed. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner never raised any objection with regard to his age while signing either the original Form-B register and/or the subsequent Form-B register. So far as the contention of fraud and manipulation in the service excerpt of the petitioner is concerned; the same is disputed question of fact. Above all, service excerpts cannot be considered over and above Form-B register, inasmuch as, the law is very clear that for any proof of age; Form-B register is the most authenticate document and is binding on the employee. It is not out of place to mention here that even the petitioner had not challenged the correctness of Form-B register in this writ application. The only contention of the petitioner is the date of Birth in the identity card and the correction/cutting in the service excerpt of the petitioner which is not corroborated by any other evidence because the service excerpt was not signed by any authority. Further, the said service excerpt is a form of letter which was issued to the petitioner for the purpose of giving details of his family members. Moreover, even taking into consideration the cutting in the service excerpts; this amount to disputed question of fact which cannot be entertained by the Writ Court. Further, the said service excerpt is a form of letter which was issued to the petitioner for the purpose of giving details of his family members. Moreover, even taking into consideration the cutting in the service excerpts; this amount to disputed question of fact which cannot be entertained by the Writ Court. Further the date of birth as mentioned in the identity card cannot be accepted over and above the Form-B register especially when in both the Form-B registers, the petitioner had duly signed and never challenged in the entire service period. Further, the petitioner had also filed the writ application after one year of his retirement. This also goes to show that his claim is an afterthought. 9. In view of the aforesaid findings no relief can be granted to this petitioner. Consequently, the instant writ application stands dismissed being devoid of merit. The pending I.A., if any, also dismissed.