Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ application, the petitioner who is an employee of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, has prayed for a direction to the respondents to release his pensionary benefits which is payable to him from 17.7.2003.

2. The petitioners case is that he had joined the service of the respondents as Grade III worker. At the time of entry in the service, his date of birth was recorded as 18.7.1945 in the Personal Data Form, on the basis of the educational certificate. According to the petitioner, he is covered by the pensionary scheme of the respondents and for that purpose statutory deductions were made from the salary of the petitioner. In the said scheme, the age of superannuation was 58 years and the deductions were to be made accordingly. Subsequently the age of superannuation of the employees of the public sector undertakings was extended to 60 years. Thus, the petitioner continued in service till 2005. However, as per the pensionary scheme, on attaining the age of 58 years on 11.7.2003, the petitioner applied for release of his pensionary benefits and for that purpose he submitted, all the necessary documents. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent No. 7) returned the documents by his letter No. R.O./Pension/B.R./0316/10D/2004/7116, dated 18.3.2004 on the ground that the petitioner will attain the age of 58 years on 17.7.2005. The said letter is annexure 2 to the writ application. According to the petitioner, in the Personal Data and the certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board his date of Birth is clearly mentioned as 18.7.1945 and from that date the petitioner attains the age of 58 years on 17.7.2003. The petitioner has claimed that according to the provisions of the pensionary scheme, he is entitled to the pensionary benefits from 17.7.2003 and subsequent revision of the age of retirement of the employees as 60 years would not in any way affect his right. The petitioner has also annexed copy of an order of this Court passed in a writ application, WP(S) No. 711/2003 and claimed that his case is squarely covered by the decision of the said case.

3. The employers of the petitioner has supported his claim. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1-6. It has been clearly stated that according to the service records the petitioner attained the age of 58 years on 11.7.2003 and in accordance with the provision of law the petitioners papers were forwarded to the respondent No. 7 requesting him to release the pensionary benefits which are payable to the petitioner under the Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme. In spite of the submission of the requisite forms with details of the petitioner and supporting documents, such as P.D. Form (service book) and Nomination Form duly certified by the authority concerned, the petitioners claim was not entertained and documents were returned with the endorsement that "it is not possible to correct the date of birth......" The respondent No. 7 further communicated that the petitioner has not attained the age of 58 years. According to the employer-respondents although there was no dispute regarding the petitioners date of birth and the same has been clearly mentioned in the service records, yet the respondent No. 7 has been unnecessarily disputing the same and refused to accept the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in his service records.

4. A lengthy counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 7 stating, inter alia, that the petitioners name appears at A/C No. BR/2316/41601 and his date of birth is mentioned as 18.7.1947 and as such he is liable to contribute in the scheme up to 18.7.2005 and the liability of pension would accrue with effect from 19.7.2005. If the date of birth of the petitioner is accepted as 17.7.1945, he would superannuate on 18.7.2003 and the department has to pay pension from that date i.e. from 19.7.2003 without receiving contribution for the period fro