JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of present Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the original petitioner, who is a retired employee of the present respondent – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”) has challenged certain part of the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition so far as restricting different types of benefits like salary allowance etc. for a period of six months while upholding the award dated 23.03.2010 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (I.T.) No.256 of 1999, by which it has been held that correct birth date of the appellant should be treated as 06.11.1942 instead of 06.11.1941 as recorded in the service book of the present appellant. 2. Short facts arise from the records are as under: 2.1 That the appellant joined service with the Corporation on 04.09.1972 as an Accountant and continued with respondent – Corporation. In the year 1995, the appellant having found the correct details about his date of birth, he made an application to the Corporation that his date of birth is 06.11.1942 and not 06.11.1941, which is recorded in the service book of the Corporation. The said application was rejected by the Corporation. He, therefore, preferred Reference before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after having examined the materials on record and considering the rival submissions of the parties, accepted the said Reference and held as stated hereinabove. The said decision was challenged by way of filing captioned writ petition. The said petition was partly allowed by way of impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2017, whereby following final order was passed : “(a) Decision by learned Tribunal is not interfered with so far as the direction to the corporation that the claimant's retirement should be considered as November, 2000 instead of November, 1999. (b) However, the direction to pay salary, allowances and other benefits for the period from November, 1999 to November 2000 is modified and the Corporation is directed to pay salary, allowances and other benefits for period of 6 months whereas the claimant will not be entitled for salary, allowances and other benefits for balance 6 months. 2.2 As far as appellant is concerned, he is aggrieved with the observations made in para 14(b) as stated above. 3. Mr. 2.2 As far as appellant is concerned, he is aggrieved with the observations made in para 14(b) as stated above. 3. Mr. D.R. Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed error in passing the aforesaid direction though it has been held by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner’s retirement date should be considered as November, 2000 and not November, 1999. He would submit that when the appellant had preferred a Reference, he had also filed application Exhibit 8 for stay of the order of Corporation for discontinuing him with the service. Initially, the said order was stayed, however, the appellant was not continued in service, but ultimately Exhibit 8 application was dismissed observing that the appellant is likely to retire in short future. By taking us through the impugned judgment and order, he would submit that the learned Single Judge has without any cogent reasons, directed to deduct the salary and other benefits for the period from November, 1999 to November, 2000, which is contrary to its own direction referred in para 14 of the impugned judgment and order. He would submit that the respondent Corporation had also challenged the impugned judgment and order by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.1050 of 2017, which was summarily dismissed by judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. He would, therefore, submit that the appeal may be allowed. 4. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Corporation has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. He would submit that the learned Single Judge has tilt the balance by deducting the amount of salary and other benefits for a period of 6 months, since the application for correction of date of birth in service book, was filed at belated stage by the respondent. He would, therefore, submit that the appeal may be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is an undisputed fact that the application was made by the present appellant for correction of date of birth in the year 1995 though he was going to retire in 1999 as per the service records. However, factually he should have been retired in the year 2000. The said application was rejected. Therefore, the appellant had immediately filed Reference in the year 1999. However, factually he should have been retired in the year 2000. The said application was rejected. Therefore, the appellant had immediately filed Reference in the year 1999. It is pertinent to note that initially the stay against the order passed by the respondent Corporation for correction of date of birth was granted. However, considering the aspect of balance of convenience, the stay was vacated. 6. We are of the opinion that when the learned Single Judge has upheld the findings of the learned Tribunal about correct date of birth and ultimately has held that the retirement date should be considered as 06.11.2000 instead of 06.11.1999, we find no cogent reason to deduct the amount towards salary and other benefits for six months as per the direction in para 14(b) of the impugned judgment and order. 7. It is pertinent to note that the appeal filed by the Corporation was dismissed on 28.11.2017, whereas present appeal is filed on 05.06.2017 and after hearing the respective parties, same is admitted. 8. We are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench while dismissing summarily the appeal filed by the Corporation, was not aware about filing of the present appeal, otherwise both appeals could have been heard together. Hence, we allow the appeal. The observations in the impugned judgment and order at para 14(b) as referred hereinabove, is quashed and set aside. Para 14(b) now shall be read as under : 14 (b): The appellant is entitled for salary, allowances and other benefits treating him as if he has retired in November, 2000 instead of November, 1999. Considering the age of the appellant, the respondent – Corporation is directed to pay all the benefits within a period of six months from today. If the same is not paid within aforesaid period, the same shall be paid with interest @ 6% till the amount is paid. Direct service is permitted. In view of the disposal of the present appeal, connected Civil Applications stand disposed of.