ORDER : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 10.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 901 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed denying to interfere with letter dated 13.01.2021 by which the respondents-authorities declined to change the date of birth of the petitioner, as mentioned at the time of joining. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the writ petition reads as under : The petitioner was initially appointed on 17.3.2011 as General Mazdoor, Category-1, AA Ram Canali Unit, Katras Area under BCCL. It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the time of joining, he submitted all the educational certificates along with the prescribed format of identification certificate, verification roll and attestation form, in which, he has clearly mentioned his date of birth as 04.02.1972. It has been contended that in spite of the fact that in all the testimonials, the date birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 04.02.1972, his age was assessed by the Medical Board to be 47 years and 06 months as on 14.12.2010. Accordingly, date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the statutory documents as 14.06.1963. 3. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner submitted his representations on 05.04.2018 and also on 09.08.2018 requesting to change his date of birth as 04.02.1972 in place of 14.06.1963, but it did not evoke any response and finally the respondent-authority by impugned order dated 13.01.2021 has declined to make any correction in the date of birth of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 901 of 2021 taking the ground that there was no occasion for the management of BCCL to send the petitioner for assessment of his age before the Medical Board since in all service excerpts and educational testimonials his date of birth was recorded as 04.02.1972 and once it has been accepted the same ought not to be disputed and as such case of the petitioner ought not to have been sent before Medical Board. 4. The respondent has taken the ground that petitioner along with other 75 had raised Industrial Dispute for employment which was answered vide Award dated 14.08.2000. 4. The respondent has taken the ground that petitioner along with other 75 had raised Industrial Dispute for employment which was answered vide Award dated 14.08.2000. The said Award was challenged up-to Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter it was given effect to. It has been submitted that since there was no proof of date of birth/age at the time of preparation of award, the petitioner along with others were sent before the Medical Board for assessment of age, wherein his age was assessed as 47 years and 06 months as on 14.12.2010. It has further been contended that the report of Medical Board was duly accepted by the petitioner by putting his LTI and signature in vernacular language and thereafter he was posted as General Mazdoor in Category I at Katras Area of respondent-BCCL, wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as 14.06.1963. Thereafter the Form B register was opened wherein also the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 14.06.1963, which was acknowledged by petitioner by putting his signature and after serving for seven years the petitioner raised dispute regarding his date of birth, which is not permissible in the eye of law. 5. The learned Single taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as also the case laws laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 10.02.2022, which is the subject matter of instant intra-court appeal. 6. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that once the date of birth has been disclosed as 04.02.1972 on the basis of educational qualification, there was no occasion for the management to ask the writ petitioner to participate in the process of assessment of age by the Medical Board. 7. It has further been submitted that requirement to ask the one or the other candidate to participate in the age assessment before the Medical Board is to be followed on the basis of Instruction No. 7 , which has statutory force in view of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It has been submitted that said instruction says that only in absence of matriculation certificate or educational certificate, the age of one or the other existing employee is to be assessed by the Medical Board. It has been submitted that said instruction says that only in absence of matriculation certificate or educational certificate, the age of one or the other existing employee is to be assessed by the Medical Board. In the case at hand, the petitioner had submitted educational certificate but ignoring those documents in defiance of Statutory Instruction No. 76, the petitioner was sent before Medical Board where his date of birth has been assessed as 14.06.1963 instead of 04.02.1972. Therefore, very constitution of the Medical Board itself is illegal being in the teeth of Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the NCWA hence sending the writ petitioner before Medical Board instead of relying upon his education qualification for assessment of age is arbitrary exercise of power exercised by the management but the learned Single Judge without appreciating these facts into consideration since has passed the impugned order which needs to be interfered with. 8. While on the other hand, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-BCCL has submitted that it is not available for the writ petitioner to question the age assessed by the Medical Board as he appeared before the Board without any demur and accepted the age assessed by it by putting his signature thereon and also put his signature on Form B Register which has got statutory fervor wherein his age was recorded as 14.06.1963. Further contention has been raised that the age assessed by the Medical Board has not been challenged by the petitioner and after lapse of about 7 years and at the fag end of service by filing representation on 05.04.2018 the petitioner disputed the date of birth recorded by the Medical Board which was rejected vide order dated 13.01.2021, the same was challenged by filing writ petition. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the aforesaid fact if has dismissed the writ petition by refusing to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.01.2021 the same cannot be said to suffer from error. Hence the instant intra-court lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 10. The undisputed fact herein is that the petitioner along with 75 others had raised Industrial Dispute for employment which was awarded vide Award dated 14.08.2000. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 10. The undisputed fact herein is that the petitioner along with 75 others had raised Industrial Dispute for employment which was awarded vide Award dated 14.08.2000. The said award was challenged up-to Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter it was given effect to. It is case of the management since there was no proof of age of the concerned workmen in whose favour award was passed, the management referred the petitioner along with others before the Medical Board for assessment of age where the age of the petitioner was assessed as 47 years and 6 months as on 14.12.2010 and accordingly his date of birth was recorded as 14.06.1963 in all service excerpts including statutory Form B Register wherein the petitioner consciously put his signature and after lapse of about 7 years of service, the petitioner has raised the grievance before the respondent-Management that as per his educational certificate his date of birth is 04.02.1972, which was rejected. Hence the petitioner is before this Court for redressal of his grievance. 11. Contention has been raised by the petitioner that the Implementation Instruction No. 76, which has got statutory force, deals with determination/verification of age of existing employee which says that in absence of matriculation certificate or educational certificate, the age of one or the other existing employee is to be assessed by the Medical Board and in the case at hand, as per educational certificates the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.02.1972, as such there was no occasion for the Management to send the petitioner for assessment of his age before Medical Board. 12. It is not in dispute that Implementation Instruction No. 76 has got statutory force as per Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Coal India Limited has entered into an agreement with the Union known as 'National Coal Wage Agreement'. The said agreement has been entered not in course of conciliation rather as per provision as contained in Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. For ready reference, Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is referred hereunder as: "18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding. The said agreement has been entered not in course of conciliation rather as per provision as contained in Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. For ready reference, Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is referred hereunder as: "18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding. --(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement." 13. It is evident from the provision of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that if any agreement would be entered into other than conciliation, the same will have its binding effect since it will have statutory fervour. 14. At the time of issuance of NCWA-III, one instruction, namely, Implementation Instruction No. 76 dated 25.04.1988 has been issued, which is also the part of the agreement, which provides procedure for determination/verification of the age of the employees and for resolution of disputed cases of Service Records. The Annexure-1 to the Implementation Instruction No. 76, which provides procedure for determination/verification of age of employees, is in two parts; the first part, part (A) deals with the provision for determination of the age at the time of appointment whereas the second part, part (B) deals with the provision for review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. The provision, as contained in second part, i.e. part (B) is relevant herein since it is a case of existing employee. The relevant portion of part (B) is quoted hereunder as: "(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 recognised 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. 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 Determination Committee/Medical Board." 15. It is thus evident from Implementation Instruction No. 76 that the Matriculation certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate is the conclusive proof of age and in absence thereof if there is variation in records, the management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Determination Committee/ Medical Board. But herein it is not the case as the appellant at the time of appointment or during preparation of Award did not produce valid proof of his age as such the Management send the petitioner along with 75 others for determination of age before the Medical Board wherein his age was assessed 47 years and 06 months as on 14.12.2010 and accordingly, date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the statutory documents as 14.06.1963 where the petitioner consciously put his signature and remained silent for seven years and at the fag end of service he raised the dispute of date of birth. 16. It is admitted case that the writ petitioner participated before the Medical Board without any demur and not only that he has accepted the age assessed by the Medical Board by putting his signature thereon and later on his date of birth as assessed by Medical Board was recorded in Statutory Form B Register wherein also he put his signature without any protest. The writ petitioner after acceptance of date of birth as assessed by Medical Board continued to remain in service fairly for a long period of seven years and only at the fag end of service he raised the dispute regarding his date of birth. 17. The writ petitioner after acceptance of date of birth as assessed by Medical Board continued to remain in service fairly for a long period of seven years and only at the fag end of service he raised the dispute regarding his date of birth. 17. The question herein, as has been raised on behalf of appellant, is that the writ petitioner ought not to have referred before the Medical Board is not acceptable to this Court at such a belated stage that too when the writ petitioner has participated before the Medical Board without any protest and accepted the report of the Medical Board who has assessed his date of birth to be 47 years and 06 months as on 14.12.2010 and accordingly, date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the statutory documents i.e, Form B as 14.06.1963 where also he put his signature without making any protest. The writ petitioner since has accepted the date of birth as mentioned in service excerpts on the basis of age assessed by the Medical Board, it is not available for the petitioner to take a ‘U’ turn and challenge the same that too after lapse of seven years. 18. So far as the sending the writ petitioner before the Medical Board is concerned that cannot be considered to be correct as per the argument advanced on behalf of appellant, this Court is of the view that if that be so then the writ petitioner ought to have raised objection when he was sent for medical examination for assessment of his age but he consciously has participated in medical examination and accepted the age assessed by it by putting his signature. Therefore, this Court is of the view that once the writ petitioner has not disputed the age assessed by the Medical Board it is not available for the petitioner to question the same after lapse of about 7-8 years that too at the fag end of service. 19. Therefore, this Court is of the view that once the writ petitioner has not disputed the age assessed by the Medical Board it is not available for the petitioner to question the same after lapse of about 7-8 years that too at the fag end of service. 19. This Court, on consideration of the rival submissions, as discussed above, is coming to the order passed by the learned Single Judge wherefrom it is evident that the learned Single Judge has considered the acceptance of date of birth by the writ petitioner as also has taken into consideration that the issue of date of birth cannot be raised at the fag end of service, relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan [ (1994) 6 SCC 302 ]; State of Maharashtra Vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble [ (2010) 14 SCC 423 ] and State of M.P. Vs. Premlal Shrivas [ (2011) 9 SCC 664 ] has denied to interfere with impugned order dated 13.01.2021 by which representation of the petitioner for correction has been refused to be interfered with, requires no interference by this Court. 20. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.