JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. The original writ petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Notice/Letter as contained in Memo No. 158 dated 10/13.02.2015 (Annexure-5), whereby and whereunder, the date of superannuation of the original writ petitioner has been fixed as 30.06.2015 instead of 30.06.2017 contrary to the date of birth mentioned in the service-sheet as well as relevant documents. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to pay the entire consequential benefits of service as well as retiral benefits treating his date of retirement as “30.06.2017 with interest @ 12 % per annum. 2. The case of the original petitioner lies in a narrow compass. In terms of the settlement dated 13.09.1986 in connection with Reference No. 10/1983, the Personnel Manager, Bhagaband Area vide letter dated 23.09.1986 issued appointment letter in favour of the original writ petitioner to the post of Miner/Loader. Pursuant to the same, the original petitioner joined the services and accordingly, on 24.03.1987, the respondents have filled up the date of birth as “29” years on 18.09.1986 in the Statutory Form-B, meaning thereby that the date of birth of the original writ petitioner was assessed to be 18.09.1957. The said Statutory Form-B was prepared and signed by the respondent authorities including the Manager and Personnel Manager in which the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 29 years on 18.09.1986. The petitioner was also issued identity card in which the age was mentioned as 29 years as on 18.09.1986. The original writ petitioner was also promoted from the post of Category-V to Category VI w.e.f. 01.01.2008. It is specific case of the original writ petitioner that he was working to the satisfaction of the respondents, but to utter surprise, the respondent No. 4 vide impugned Letter dated 10/13.02.2015 intimated the original writ petitioner that he would complete 60 years of age on 30.06.2015 and as such, going to superannuate on 30.06.2015. Pursuant to the same, the original writ petitioner on 23.02.2015 raised an objection before the respondent No. 4 stating therein that he will superannuate in September, 2017 on completion of 60 years of age on the basis of entry made in his service excerpts, statutory form-B and other relevant documents and as such, notice of retirement should not be implemented, but no heed was paid and the original writ petitioner was forced to superannuate on 30.06.2015. Thereafter, vide office order dated 27/31.07.2015, he was promoted from Category-VI to Grade-C w.e.f. 01.01.2015. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed, challenging the pre-mature retirement notice dated 10/13.02.2015. 3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, original writ petitioner died and his legal heirs have been substituted in his place. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned order/notice is not tenable in the eyes of law as at the time of appointment, the age of the petitioner was assessed to be as ‘29 years' on 18.09.1986 and same was recorded in his service excerpts, Statutory Form-B as well as other relevant records, meaning thereby that his date of birth was assessed as ‘18.09.1957’. The Form-B/Service Excerpts being a statutory documents were to be considered for the purpose of fixation of date of retirement. The said Statutory Form-B and Service Excerpts were also counter-signed by the respondents authorities and at that time, they have not disputed the same and as such, there was no occasion for the respondent-BCCL to change the date of birth as per their own wish and give an imaginary date of birth and the petitioner ought to have been retired in the year 2017 based on the date of birth mentioned in service excerpts and Statutory Form-B as ‘29 years' on 18.09.1986. Learned counsel further argues that it is not open for the respondents to give an imaginary date of birth at the fag end of service career of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the Rule is for both sides i.e. for employer as well as for employee. It is not only prohibited for the employee from making representations or asking the employer to change the date of birth at the fag end of his service career, rather, it is also applicable to the employer not to make any corrections regarding the date of birth of his employee at the fag end of his service career. In the present case, it was the employer who has issued notice of retirement at the fag end of service career of the petitioner treating his date of birth as 18.06.1955, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. In the present case, it was the employer who has issued notice of retirement at the fag end of service career of the petitioner treating his date of birth as 18.06.1955, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. He further submits that the original writ petitioner is entitled for salary for the period from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017 beside the benefits of continuity of service for the purpose of determination of his retiral benefits and as such, a direction be given upon the respondents to pay the entire consequential benefits of service as well as retiral benefits treating his date of retirement as 30.06.2017 with 12 % interest per annum to the legal heirs of original writ petitioner. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 5. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the instant writ application is not maintainable in the eyes of law and liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches as the original petitioner has approached this Court after more than one year of his superannuation. Further, the notice of superannuation of the petitioner was served to him on 13.02.2015 itself i.e., at least five months prior to his superannuation, but he never challenged the same rather after having superannuation, the original petitioner applied for his gratuity in the prescribed Form-I and by way of afterthought, he has approached this Court. He further submits that the age of 29 years as on 18.09.1986 was the self declaration of the petitioner not based any assessment as has been claimed and such declaration of the petitioner is subject to verification and correctness of the same is under scanner and as such, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 6. He further submits that the age of 29 years as on 18.09.1986 was the self declaration of the petitioner not based any assessment as has been claimed and such declaration of the petitioner is subject to verification and correctness of the same is under scanner and as such, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 6. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the original petitioner joined the services under the Management in the year, 1986 and the respondents have filled up the date of birth “29” years as on 18.09.1986 in the Statutory Form-B as well as service excerpts, meaning thereby that the date of birth of the original writ petitioner was assessed to be 18.09.1957, the said Statutory Form-B was prepared and accepted/authenticated by the respondent authorities as well as original petitioner including the Manager and Personnel Manager in which the age of the petitioner was recorded as 29 years on 18.09.1986. Form-B is a Statutory Form which cannot be disbelieved. The Respondents themselves have signed the Statutory Form-B which shows that they were very much conscious of the fact that the date of birth of the original petitioner has rightly been mentioned. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions have clearly held that the date of birth mentioned in Statutory Form-B shall only be considered and not any other date of birth certificate relied upon by the parties. As the date of birth mentioned in the Statutory Form-B was duly signed and authenticated by the respondents, it cannot be disputed at the fag end of service as it is a Statutory Form. Neither employer nor the employee can be allowed to raise issue of correctness of date of birth at the fag end of service. In case of Ram Pyare Singh v. BCCL in LPA No. 327 of 2006, in which it has been held that Form B which was prepared at the time of joining of the petitioner, is a statutory document and record of service as the same has duly been signed and authenticated by the petitioner. The respondents have raised objection that writ petition has been filed after more than one year of retirement is not sustainable as a clear case has been made out for interference. The respondents have raised objection that writ petition has been filed after more than one year of retirement is not sustainable as a clear case has been made out for interference. This issue has already been answered in Para-27 of the Full Bench judgments passed in case of Kamta Pandey v. BCCL (supra), which reads as under:— “27. In these decisions, though it is observed that the employee will not normally be permitted to apply for change of his date of birth at the fag end of service career, the Supreme Court clearly held that if the Court is fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed and when a clear case, relating to the date of birth, is made out on the basis of clinching materials, then necessary direction to make a declaration of the said date of birth can be given.” 7. In view of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements, the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, notice/letter being Memo No. 158 dated 10/13.02.2015 (Annexure-5) is hereby quashed and set aside. As the original petitioner has already retired and died, no order can be passed for taking him back in service but the original petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits accrued to him, taking into account the date of birth as 18.09.1957, as per the Statutory Form-B and Service Excerpts. Since, the original petitioner had died, the respondents are directed to give all the consequential monetary benefits to his legal heirs i.e., the petitioners herein, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Resultantly, writ petition stands allowed.