JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to consider and determine the date of superannuation of the petitioner on the basis of his actual date of birth which is 06.12.1963. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter issued under Ref. No. BCCL/EJA/ASP/INC/2022/2744 dated 16.12.2022 by the Project Officer, A.S.P. Colliery, Sudamdih, Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), Dhanbad whereby the petitioner was intimated that he would retire from the service on 30.06.2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Under Ground Piece-rated Miner/Loader in Ena Colliery of the respondent BCCL on 27.01.1986 vide Letter No. 131/86 dated 30.12.1985/07.01.1986. The petitioner was issued Identity Card showing his age as 22 years as on 06.12.1985. A service sheet in Form-‘B’ was also issued to the petitioner on 19.03.1992 showing his age as 22 years as on 06.12.1985 and in view of the said age mentioned in the statutory Form-‘B’ as well as in the Identity Card issued to him, his date of superannuation should be 31.12.2023 on completion of 60 years of age. The petitioner represented the respondent no. 4-the Project Director, Ena Colliery, BCCL, Dhanbad for consideration and determination of his age of superannuation treating his date of birth as 06.12.1963, however the same remained unresponded, which has compelled him to prefer the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on the very next date of filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner received letter vide Ref. No. BCCL/EJA/ASP/INC/2022/2744 dated 16.12.2022 issued under the signature of Project Officer, A.S.P. Colliery (Sudamdih), BCCL, Dhanbad whereby he was informed that he would retire from the service on 30.06.2023 and if he had any objection, the same would have to be raised within seven days from the date of issuance of the said letter. The petitioner thus also seeks challenge to the letter dated 16.12.2022. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that during verification of the documents, it has been found that the age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 22 years as on 06.12.1985 in statutory Form-‘B’, however there is an overwriting on the figure “12” which creates doubt. It is further submitted that in the records of Non-Executive Information System (NEIS), the petitioner’s date of birth has been recorded as 01.07.1963. It is further submitted that in the records of Non-Executive Information System (NEIS), the petitioner’s date of birth has been recorded as 01.07.1963. He has no educational or statutory certificate so as to ascertain his date of birth and in such circumstance, his date of birth can be ascertained by constituting a medical board in view of Implementation Instruction No. 76 dated 25th April, 1988 of NCWA-III and the respondents will take decision on the same accordingly. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has sought quashing of the superannuation notice as contained in letter dated 16.12.2022 claiming that his actual date of birth is 06.12.1963 and as such his date of retirement should be 06.12.2023. 6. This Court, vide interim order dated 26.06.2023, stayed the superannuation notice dated 16.12.2022 issued under the signature of Project Director, ASP Colliery, Sudamdih, Dhanbad till the next date of listing of this case. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that there is manipulation in the Statutory Form-B of the petitioner regarding his date of birth. To verify the authenticity of the claim of the respondents, this Court, vide order dated 21.06.2023, called for the original register containing Form-‘B’ of the petitioner and pursuant to the said order, the relevant register was produced by learned counsel for the respondents before this Court on 26.06.2023 and it has also been produced today. 8. On perusal of the said register, it transpires that apart from the From-‘B’ of the petitioner, Form-‘B’ of few other employees have also been attached. A glance of Form-‘B’ of the petitioner would indicate that his age was ascertained 22 years as on 06.12.1985 by the concerned colliery medical officer. So far as the issue of manipulation in Form-‘B’ of the petitioner is concerned, on perusal of Form-‘B’ of other employees contained in the said register, it appears that such type of overwritings have also been made in the same. Hence, I do not find any justification in the said contention of learned counsel for the respondents. Moreover, in Form ‘B’ of the petitioner, the date of birth-‘06.12.1985’ is also clearly written in words which suggests that there is no such manipulation in Form-‘B’ of the petitioner as has been claimed by the respondents. 9. Hence, I do not find any justification in the said contention of learned counsel for the respondents. Moreover, in Form ‘B’ of the petitioner, the date of birth-‘06.12.1985’ is also clearly written in words which suggests that there is no such manipulation in Form-‘B’ of the petitioner as has been claimed by the respondents. 9. Further contention of the respondents is that in NEIS record, the petitioner’s date of birth has been recorded as 01.07.1963 and therefore the same should be treated as authentic for official purpose. The said contention is also not tenable as in case of difference in the date of birth of an employee in various service records, the date of birth recorded in Form-‘B’ has to prevail as it is a statutory and most reliable document for determination of age of an employee. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rajak Mia Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others [W.P.(S) No. 2097 of 2015). In the said case, the date of birth of the concerned employee recorded in Form-‘B’ and NEIS entry were different and it was held that the entry made in Form-‘B’ would prevail. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner of the said case in NEIS entry as per Form-‘B’. The facts and circumstance of the present case is also similar to the said case. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned superannuation notice issued vide letter under Ref. No. BCCL/EJA/ASP/INC/2022/2744 dated 16.12.2022 by the Project Officer, A.S.P. Colliery (Sudamdih), BCCL, Dhanbad is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 4 is directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in NEIS entry as ‘06.12.1963’. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.