M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.

1. Kamta Pandey, the petitioner, an employee of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., the respondent, has raised the dispute about the date of birth. According to the petitioner, his date of birth, as reflected in the Matriculation Certificate, is 1.7.1951. The respondents have, however, disputed the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate and insisted on the date of birth recorded in the Form B Register, which is said to be the statutory one. Hence, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court by filing a writ of mandamus.

2. At the time of hearing before the learned Single Judge, two judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court giving conflicting views were brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

3. The Division Bench, comprising of Honble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir (then Chief Justice) and Justice R.K. Merathia in the case of Awadhesh Singh v. The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. 2005 (2) JCR 474 (Jhr.) held that as per the Instruction 76, the date of birth, as mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate alone has to be taken to be conclusive proof and not the entry in the service register. On the other hand, the other Division Bench comprising of Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Justice D.P. Singh, in L.P.A. No. 50 of 2006 Bipin Bihari Singh v. Central Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. held that the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate will not prevail upon the service records admitted and acknowledged by the employee and service register alone has to be taken to be conclusive proof.

4. In view of the conflicting views of the Honble Division Benches of this Court in the aforesaid two judgments and considering the mutual relationship between the employer and the employee, who are governed by National Coal Wage Agreement, learned Single Judge felt that it would be appropriate that the controversy be resolved by a Larger Bench, Accordingly, learned Single Judge has referred the matter with the following question:

Whether the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated should be considered as the conclusive proof of age or the age determined by the Medical Board and other service record?

5. Then the matter was placed before the Chief Justice, who passed administrative order to post this case before the Full Bench. That is how this matter has come up before this Full Bench.

6. This writ petition has been filed by Kamta Pandey seeking for the issuance of mandamus directing the respondents, namely, Bharat Coking Coal Limited to make necessary correction in the date of birth of the petitioner in his service record as 1.7.1951 as per the Matriculation Certificate as the date of birth has wrongly been mentioned in the service record as 16.7.1948. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(a) The petitioner was appointed as Pay Loader Operator under Khas Kusunda Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the year 1971.

(b) In the year 1968, the petitioner passed the Matriculation Examination.

(c) As per the Matriculation Certificate, his date of birth is 1.7.1951.

(d) The said Certificate was issued even prior to the date of appointment of the petitioner.

(e) When he was appointment on 16.7.1971, an Identity Card was issued to the petitioner and the date of birth was mentioned in the Identity Card as 1.7.1951 as per the Matriculation Certificate.

(f) While he was working, the respondent Company issued the Seva Abhilekh mentioning various details, including the date of birth, available on the records and sent to the petitioner for verification of those particulars.

(g) The petitioner, after receipt of the same, submitted the said Seva Abhilekh mentioning his correct date of birth as 1.7.1951 in the said form.

(h) After submitting the same, he was under bonafide impression that his date of birth should have been recorded in the service record as 1.7.1951 as given in the Seva Abhilekh after correcting the date of birth.

(i) When the petitioner came to know th