Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, In this writ application has prayed for quashing the office order dated 30.4.2002 (Annexure-5) issued under the signature of the Project Officer, Central Saunda Colliery, P.O. and P.S.Saunda, District-Hazaribagh by which the petitioner was retired from service from the post of Store Keeper of the Company with effect from 30.4.2002 (A.N.) and his name has been struck off from the muster roll of the Colliery.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the Respondents to the maintainability of this writ application on the ground that earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ application containing the same prayer, which was• registered as W.P. (S) No. 3081 of 2002. The petitioner had, however, sought for withdrawal of the writ application with liberty to file a suit for redressal of his grievance. The prayer of withdrawal in terms of the liberty, as prayed for, was granted and accordingly, by order dated 21.9.2006, the writ application was disposed of.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondents argues that after having obtained the permission for withdrawal with liberty as prayed for, the petitioner did not file any civil suit nor did he avail any other Forum for redressal of his grievance and therefore, the present writ application on the same facts and for the same reliefs, is not maintainable.

Learned counsel, in this context refers to the provisions of Order 23 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and submits that the petitioner having not filed any suit. before the Civil Court in terms of the liberty given to him, he is debarred from filing a fresh writ application on the same issues and facts.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner 'argues on the other hand that the petitioner though had filed a writ application earlier but on the advice of his lawyer, had prayed for withdrawal of the writ application with liberty to file a suit and such prayer having been granted by the Court while disposing of the writ application, this in itself shall not debar the. petitioner from filing a fresh writ application for the same reliefs, as because the issues involved in the earlier writ application, were never decided on merits and the principles of res judicata would not apply to debar the petitioner from filing the present writ application.

6. I find force in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. The provisions of Order 23 Rule 4, may not have strict application in respect of writ applications and in the light of the facts of the case. Even otherwise, the mere fact that the petitioner sought to withdraw the earlier writ application on the advice of his counsel, in itself would not deprive him of seeking redressal of his grievances by filing this writ application, since the reliefs claimed are amenable to writ jurisdiction. The objections taken by the Respondents regarding the maintainability of this writ application is therefore, overruled.

7. As regards the main dispute, the facts of the petitioner's case is that he was inducted in service under the Respondents Colliery and at the time of his appointment, his service records were opened, wherein, his date of birth was recorded. It appears from the statements as contained in the counter affidavit of the Respondents that much later, a complaint was received against the petitioner in respect of the entry of the petitioner's date of birth in his service records and on verification, it was found that there was tampering in the entry in as much as, the figure 1942 was interpolated to represent 1952. On the basis of the aforesaid alleged interpolations, the Respondent-employer proceeded to take a decision to terminate the services of the petitioner by striking off his name from the muster roll on the presumption that the petitioner's actual year of birth is 1942 and not 1952.

8. The petitioner's contention, on the other hand, is that the original entry in his service records, had confirmed the y