ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs: “(I) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent SECL to accept the actual date of birth of the petitioner as 20/4/1953 and accordingly declare the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 31/12/2007 as void and further fix his date of superannuation as 31/3/2013 on attaining the age of 60 years, because on account of cavalier manner of the respondent SECL the radiologist report in respect of the petitioner has been misplaced. (II) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent SECL to make payment of entire salary and all other allowances for the period from 31/12/2007 to 31/3/2013 along with consequential benefits. (III) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, along with cost of the petition may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Driver in SECL and got retired on 31.12.2007 as per his date of birth recorded in service book as 01.01.1948, whereas according to the petitioner, his date of birth was 20.04.1953, as such he should have been retired on 31.03.2013. Before retiring, the petitioner raised the said issue before the Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, but during pendency of the dispute before the CGIT, the petitioner got retired from service on 31.12.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation as per the date of birth recorded in the office of SECL. Subsequently by award dated 24/6/2013, the CGIT decided the dispute and directed the management to refer the dispute of date of birth of the petitioner to Age Determination Committee as per Instruction No. 76 within 15 days. After passing the award by the CGIT, by letter dated 3/12/2013 the authorities directed the petitioner to appear before SECL on 9/12/2013 along with photograph and other details so as to enable them to consider his case. Accordingly the petitioner appeared before authorities and also submitted the birth certificate and school leaving certificate and in both the certificates the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 20/4/1953 and on which the radiologist test was conducted on the said date. Accordingly the petitioner appeared before authorities and also submitted the birth certificate and school leaving certificate and in both the certificates the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 20/4/1953 and on which the radiologist test was conducted on the said date. When no action has been taken by the authorities, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the SECL on 25/6/2014 and prayed for considering his case on the basis of the radiologist report. All of a sudden by letter dated 10/10/2014 the respondent SECL informed the petitioner that the radiologist report dated 9/12/2013 has been misplaced and again directed the petitioner to appear before the SECL for radiologist test on 21/10/2014, against which the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. All of a sudden by letter dated 10/10/2014, the respondent SECL informed the petitioner that the radiologist report dated 9/12/2013 has been misplaced and again directed the petitioner to appear before the SECL for radiologist test on 21/10/2014. The impugned action of the respondent authorities is illegal and arbitrary because after lapse of more than 10 months, the authorities of SECL by a single line communication stated that the radiologist report has been misplaced and from the said fact it can be seen about the cavalier manner of the respondent authorities in respect of the employees of the SECL. The petitioner is approaching the respondent authorities since 2002-2003 i.e. much before the date of his retirement for correction of his date of birth, but nothing has been done despite the award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent authorities be directed to declare the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.04.1953 and according to it, the petitioner be deemed to be retired on 31.03.2013, as such he be given the all consequential benefits and other allowances. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Respondents have acted in a prompt manner after the award was passed by CGIT and communicated to the answering Respondent for implementation on 11.09.2013 from the office of ALC Central. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Respondents have acted in a prompt manner after the award was passed by CGIT and communicated to the answering Respondent for implementation on 11.09.2013 from the office of ALC Central. Immediately thereafter the Respondents moved note sheet on 23.09.2013 for implementation of the award and in this regard a letter dated 28 10 2013 was issued by GM(IR) SECL (HQ) to GM, Kusmunda Area for submission of relevant documents relating to the petitioner at the earliest On 1.12.2013 notice was issued to the Petitioner for appearance before ADC on 04.12.2013 which was rescheduled on 9.012 2013. The Petitioner appeared before the Committee and radiological test was conducted. It is further submitted that inadvertently the Radiological Report of the Petitioner was misplaced and therefore further action regarding age determination of the Petitioner could not be completed and therefore on 12.07.2014 GM (P&A) wrote a letter to Area Personnel Manager Kusmunda requesting for conducting radiological test again by noticing the Petitioner to be present for undergoing radiological test on 18.07.2014 at 9:00 am, but on 14.07 2014 the Petitioner sent a notice to the respondents and did not appear before ADC on the date mention in the notice. On 10.10.2014 petitioner was requested to appear on 21.10.2014 at Indira Vihar Health Center, SECL Bilaspur but the petitioner did not appear before the ADC. Subsequently, on 26.08.2015 respondents again proposed to convene ADC on 28.08.2015 for determination of age of the petitioner and for the same notice was issued on 26.08.2015 through registered post and by hand also but the petitioner refused to accept the notice. Thus, it could not be said that respondents are not willing to comply with the award of CGIT regarding deciding the age dispute of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court may direct the petitioner to appear before ADC and in turn the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for determination of his age in accordance with law. The petitioner has failed to make out any legal and valid ground for seeking interference of this Court and therefore the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner has failed to make out any legal and valid ground for seeking interference of this Court and therefore the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Driver in SECL and got retired on 31.12.2007 as per his date of birth recorded in service book as 01.01.1948, whereas according to the petitioner, his date of birth was 20.04.1953, as such he should have been retired on 31.12.2007. Before retiring, the petitioner raised the said issue before the Department but the same was not considered, thereafter he approached the Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, but during pendency of the dispute before the CGIT, the petitioner got retired from service on 1/1/2008 on attaining the age of superannuation as per the date of birth recorded in the office of SECL. Subsequently by award dated 24/6/2013, the CGIT decided the dispute and directed the management to refer the dispute of date of birth of the petitioner to Age Determination Committee. Thereafter vide letter dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure-P/3), the petitioner was directed to appear before the Age Determination Committee on 09.12.2013, but when no final order was passed, then the petitioner sent legal notice (Annexure-P/5) to the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities again issued notice to the petitioner (Annexure-P/6), which is as under: ^^vkidk fnukad 09-12-2013 dks gq, jsfM;ksykWth VsLV fjiksVZ ?kqe tkus ds dkj.k egkÁca/kd ¼dkŒ Á’kkŒ½ ,lbZlh,y] fcykliqj us vius i= Øekad 401 fnukad 07-10-2014 }kjk vkidk iqu% jsfM;ksykWth VsLV djkus gsrq fnukad 21-10-2014 dks lqcg 09%00 cts bafnjk fogkj gsYFk lsUVj] ,lbZlh,y] fcykliqj esa cSBd fu;r dh xbZ gSA vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd vki orZeku dk ikliksVZ lkbt QksVksxzkQ ftls ojh; vf/kdkjh ¼dkfeZd½] dqleq.Mk {ks= }kjk vfHkÁekf.kr fd;k gks rFkk vius mez fu/kkZj.k ls lacaf/kr ewy nLrkostksa ds lkFk fu;r frfFk] LFkku ,oa le; ij vfuok;Z :i ls mifLFkr gksosa rkfd vkids mez fu/kkZj.k ls lacaf/kr dk;ZokbZ fd;k tk ldsA** 7. The contention of the petitioner is that since he did not appear for radiology test before the Medical Board, SECL as per notice dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure-P/6), as such his case was not considered by the Age Determination Committee, but the petitioner earlier appeared before the respondent SECL and got conducted his radiology test, but the said report has been said to be lost by the respondent authorities. The respondents have also filed several notices dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure-R/7), 10.10.2014 (Annexure-R/8) and 26.08.2015 (Annexure-R/9) and contended that the petitioner deliberately did not appear before the Medical Board, as such no case is made out in his favour and accordingly the petition is liable to be dismissed, but it is clear from all the documents that the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and his x-ray was also conducted on 09.12.2013, but the respondent authorities somehow lost the report and did not consider his case for correction of his date of birth. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, (2014) 12 SCC 570 , held in Paras 14 and 15 as under: “14. We give due regard to the sensitive nature of date of birth disputes and fully agree with the approach laid down in R. Kirubakaran Case (supra). However, with an aim to prevent the cascading inconveniences caused by a change of date of birth, a wronged employee should not be denied of his rights especially when he has adhered to the procedure laid down and attempted to avoid litigation by resorting to in-house mechanisms. Public Corporations/Departments, should not benefit from their own omission of duty. In the present case, the appellant-company failed to follow the procedure as laid down in the Implementation Instruction. It is the appellant’s omission and not the inaction of the respondent which led to the dispute being raised in the courts at such a delayed stage. The attitude of such corporations wherein to avoid the rectification of a date of birth, litigation is unnecessarily prolonged just because they have number of resources at their command, goes against the grain of equity and duty towards society at large. 15. As noted by us, the respondent in 1987 on coming to know of the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service records from the nomination form sought rectification. 15. As noted by us, the respondent in 1987 on coming to know of the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service records from the nomination form sought rectification. Therefore, such rectification was not sought at the fag end of his service. We have further noticed that the High Court duly verified the genuineness of the school leaving certificate on the basis of a supplementary affidavit filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Mishra, legal inspector of the appellant company on September 6, 2010 before the High Court. It has been admitted in the said supplementary affidavit that the school leaving certificate has been verified and has been found to be genuine. We have further noticed that Implementation Instruction No. 76 clause (i)(a) permits rectification of the date of birth by treating the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate to be correct provided such certificates were issued by the educational institution prior to the date of employment. The question of interpreting the words ‘were issued’ was correctly interpreted, in our opinion, by the High Court which interpreted the said words for the purpose of safeguarding against misuse of the certificates for the purpose of increasing the period of employment. The High Court correctly interpreted and meant that these words will not apply where the school records containing the date of birth were available long before the starting of the employment. The date of issue of certificate actually intends to refer to the date with the relevant record in the school on the basis of which the certificate has been issued. A school leaving certificate is usually issued at the time of leaving the school by the student, subsequently a copy thereof also can be obtained where a student misplaces his said school leaving certificate and applies for a fresh copy thereof. The issuance of fresh copy cannot change the relevant record which is prevailing in the records of the school from the date of the admission and birth date of the student, duly entered in the records of the school.” 9. The issuance of fresh copy cannot change the relevant record which is prevailing in the records of the school from the date of the admission and birth date of the student, duly entered in the records of the school.” 9. In the case in hand also, the petitioner filed several representations before the respondents, but when no action was taken, the petitioner approached before the Industrial Tribunal and the learned Industrial Tribunal passed award in favour of the petitioner on 24.06.2013 directing the respondent authorities to refer the case of the petitioner before the Age Determination Committee. The petitioner also appeared before the Age Determination Committee and as per direction of the Age Determination Committee, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board, but the respondent authorities did not consider his case. The petitioner has also filed his school leaving certificate and as per this certificate, his date of birth is 20.04.1953. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has been raising his objection from the very inception and in his ID card (Annexure-P/7), his age is written as 30 years as on 17.08.1984. Therefore, considering all these documents and conduct of the respondent authorities, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed that the age of the petitioner be treated as 20.04.1953 instead of 01.01.1948 and consequently, his retirement age would be 31.03.2013 instead of 31.12.2007 and he is deemed to be retired on 31.03.2013. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits including salary and other allowances for the said period. 10. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.