J UDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, CJ. Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. H.N. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General for respondent No.4. 2. This writ appeal is filed by the appellant, Medical Insurance Officer, Employees State Insurance (E.S.I) Scheme Dispensary, Dhubri, being aggrieved with the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7856/2015. 3. WP(C) No.7856/2015 was filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, namely, Sri Ram Giri, being aggrieved with the communication dated 04.11.2015 issued by the Insurance Medical Officer i/c, E.S.I. Scheme Dispensary, Dhubri, which reads as under : “OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE MEDICAL OFFICER I/C, ESI SCHEME DISPENSARY ::: DHUBRI No. ESI/DHB/ESSTT/ 2015/140 Dated : 04/11/2015 From : Insurance Medical Officer i/c ESI Scheme Dispensary, Dhubri. To : The Asstt. Registrar (Judl/-III) Guwahati High Court, Guwahati Sub. : No. WP(C) 1603/2012. As per order of the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court, Guwahati Vide Memo No. HC.XXI 71,557-61 Dated : 22/09/2015 a hearing was instituted on 7th October, 2015 at 12:00 noon in the Office of the Insurance Medical Officer i/c, ESI Scheme Dispensary, Dhubri, Assam. Also the matter was brought to the notice of the Administrative Medical Officer, ESI Scheme Assam, Guwahati-37, the appointing authority of Sri Ram Giri (respondent No.2) vide letter No.ESI/DHB/ESSTT/2015/122, Dated : 12 th October, 2015 (Copy enclosed). A reply was received from her end vide letter No.ESI/Pension/Court Case/Ram Giri/2015/9968, Dated 28th October, 2015 which directed the Insurance Medical Officer i/c, ESI Scheme Dispensary, Dhubri (Respondent No.3) to settle the case of Sri Ram Giri, Gr-IV, ESI Scheme Dispensary, Dhubri as per his Date of Birth which was mentioned in the Service Book (Copy enclosed). From the above mentioned facts it appears that the Date of Retirement of Sri. Ram Giri, Gr-IV, ESI Scheme Dispensary, Dhubri should be executed as 30/04/2012 after ascertaining his Date of Birth as 01/05/1952 and hence his Release Order No.ESI/DHB/ESSTT/2012/60, Dated 30/04/2012 remains in effect as the same (Copy enclosed). This is for favour of your kind information and needful action. Insurance Medical Officer ic ESI Scheme Dispensary, Dhubri ................” 4. Ram Giri, Gr-IV, ESI Scheme Dispensary, Dhubri should be executed as 30/04/2012 after ascertaining his Date of Birth as 01/05/1952 and hence his Release Order No.ESI/DHB/ESSTT/2012/60, Dated 30/04/2012 remains in effect as the same (Copy enclosed). This is for favour of your kind information and needful action. Insurance Medical Officer ic ESI Scheme Dispensary, Dhubri ................” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was appointed as a Grade IV employee on 01.04.1975 in the office of the Administrative Medical Officer, ESI Scheme, Assam at Guwahati and got attached to the said office as Night Chowkidar vide order dated 20.08.1975. Thereafter, in the year 1976, he was transferred to Jogighopa ESI Scheme Dispensary and subsequently transferred and posted to Dhubri ESI Scheme Dispensary. In his service book, his date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1954 and as such, he was to attain the age of superannuation on 31.12.2014. On 07.07.2011, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was informed by the Insurance Medical Officer, E.S.I. Scheme Dispensary, Dhubri that his date of birth was corrected and recorded afresh because during audit inspection, it was found that his date of birth is 01.05.1952 and not 01.01.1954. Later on, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was served with retirement notice dated 17.10.2011, whereby the Insurance Medical Officer had informed the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 that his retirement was due on 30.04.2012 on attaining the age of 60 years. 5. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No.1603/2012 and the said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge. The relevant portion of the above referred order dated 11.09.2015 is reproduced hereunder: “From the above as well as from a perusal of the service book, it appears that respondent No.3 had recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.05.1952 vide his entry dated 21.03.2012. Thus, the date of birth which the petitioner claims to be 01.01.1954 had been changed to 01.05.1952. Thus, the date of birth which the petitioner claims to be 01.01.1954 had been changed to 01.05.1952. Following the stand taken by respondent No.4 that discrepancy was noticed in the date of birth recorded by the petitioner in his service book in the course of audit inspection and that it was for the administrative department to do the needful, the materials on record do not indicate that before altering the date of birth of the petitioner from 01.01.1954 to 01.05.1952 any notice was given to the petitioner. In such circumstances, Court is of the view that petitioner ought to have been put to notice or heard before changing his date of birth inasmuch as, such alteration in the date of birth had adverse civil consequences on the petitioner. Therefore, principles of natural justice were required to be followed. In any case, even accepting the date of birth as projected by the petitioner, he would have superannuated on 31.12.2014. Therefore, a post decisional hearing may be afforded to the petitioner by the respondent No.3 in support of his claim that his date of birth is 01.01.1954 and not 01.05.1952. In the event petitioner succeeds, superannuation date of the petitioner would accordingly stand extended for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. Let the petitioner appear before the respondent No.3 within 30 days from today whereafter necessary decision shall be taken by respondent No.3 within 30 days thereafter.” 6. Pursuant to the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1603/2012, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 approached the Insurance Medical Officer, E.S.I. Scheme Dispensary, Dhubri by filing a representation dated 08.10.2015 requesting him to do the needful for ascertaining his actual date of birth/date of retirement for proper adjudication of his disputes for his service/retirement benefits as per the order passed by the Writ Court in WP(C) No.1603/2012, decided on 11.09.2015. 7. It appears that pursuant to the said representation, a notice was issued to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to furnish proof regarding his date of birth. 7. It appears that pursuant to the said representation, a notice was issued to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to furnish proof regarding his date of birth. On 07.10.2015, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner appeared in the office of the Insurance Medical Officer along with his Advocate and submitted a Character/Transfer Certificate issued by the Head Master of Shree Baraha Higher Secondary School, Bhindabari, Dhital-1, Kashi, Nepal dated 2068-10-29 (as per Nepali Calendar), wherein his date of birth appeared as 2015-01-17 (as per Nepali Calendar) and the same was translated into Indian Calendar before the Notary Public of Nepal Notary Public Council on 27.02.2011, wherein his date of birth was shown as 29th April, 1958 A.D. (as per Indian Calendar). No other proof or document was produced by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner in support of his date of birth. Considering the above referred document, the Insurance Medical Officer issued the impugned communication dated 04.11.2015, which has already been quoted in the earlier part of this judgment. 8. As observed earlier, the communication dated 04.11.2015 was challenged by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner in WP(C) No.7856/2015 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13.03.2023. The learned Single Judge allowed WP(C) No.7856/2015 solely on the ground that before altering the date of birth of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, no show-cause notice was served upon him and therefore, the action of the respondent No.3 therein, i.e. Insurance Medical Officer, of unilaterally changing the date of birth of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner is bad in the eye of law. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 13.03.2023 is reproduced hereunder: “After careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the unhesitant opinion that the ratio laid down in the case of Shankar Lal (Supra) would be squarely applicable in the present case as well. The respondent no.3 had clearly committed an error in unilaterally altering the age of the petitioner recorded in the Service Book when the writ petitioner was just on the verge of retirement and compelled the petitioner to go on retirement prior to completion of his normal tenure as per the date of birth originally recorded in his service book which was 01/01/1954. Whether there was any justifiable ground for the authority to do so or not, cannot be an issue in this proceeding, since no opportunity whatsoever, was granted to the petitioner to show cause in the matter. The above exercise in altering the recorded date of birth of the petitioner in the service book without putting him on notice has to be held to be arbitrary and illegal warranting interference by this Court. For the reasons stated herein above, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, since the petitioner has already retired from service, this Writ petition is being disposed of by directing the respondents to treat the petitioner to be in service upto 31/12/2014 for the purpose of notional fixation of his pay/pension and accordingly, give him the arrear pensionary dues, if any, payable as per Rules. The aforesaid exercise be carried out and completed within a period of 90(ninety) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 9. The appellant also preferred a review petition, being Review Petition No.82/2023 before the learned Single Judge seeking review of the order dated 13.03.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 7856/2015. However, the said review petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, while observing that entertaining the plea raised by the review petitioner/appellant would lead to rehearing the writ petition on merits, which would not be permissible in a review petition. Learned Single Judge has further observed that if the review petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.03.2023, the remedy would lie elsewhere and not in a review petition. Hence, this writ appeal. 10. Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7856/2015 cannot be sustained for the following reason: It was not open for the learned Single Judge to look into the validity of the order dated 17.10.2011 issued by the Insurance Medical Officer fixing the retirement date of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner as 30.04.2012. The learned Single Judge has interfered with the said action of the Insurance Medical Officer only on the ground that before passing of the said order, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge has interfered with the said action of the Insurance Medical Officer only on the ground that before passing of the said order, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge has ignored the fact that in earlier round of litigation, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner challenged the action of the Insurance Medical Officer of changing his date of birth unilaterally and this Court, while entertaining the said plea raised by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner in WP(C) No.1603/2012, the Writ Court passed an order on 11.09.2015 while observing that before altering the date of birth of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, principles of natural justice were required to be followed but even accepting the date of birth as projected by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, he would have superannuated on 31.12.2014. Therefore, a post decisional hearing may be offered to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner by Insurance Medical Officer in support of the claim that his date of birth is 01.01.1954 and not 01.05.1952. It was also escaped from the notice of the learned Single Judge that pursuant to the order dated 11.09.2015 passed in WP(C) No.1603/2012, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was granted opportunity to substantiate his claim that his date of birth is 01.01.1954 and not 01.05.1952 but the respondent No.1/writ petitioner had miserably failed to submit any proof in support of his claim that his date of birth is 01.01.1954 instead of 01.05.1952. The said fact is evident from the proceedings of hearing conducted by the Insurance Medical Officer, pursuant to the direction given by the Writ Court vide order 11.09.2015 passed in WP(C) No.1603/2012. 11. From the above proceedings, it is revealed that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner placed reliance on a certificate issued by a school of Nepal which only verifies that his date of birth is 29th April, 1958, a new date of birth, which was never disclosed at any point of time. 12. This Court is of the opinion that when the respondent No.1/writ petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that his date of birth is 01.01.1954, no case for interference was made out in the decision of the Insurance Medical Officer retiring the respondent No.1/writ petitioner on 30.04.2012. 13. In view of above discussion, this writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7856/2015 is set aside.