JUDGMENT :

1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1247 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed by quashing the order dated 13/18.11.2017 passed by the Project Officer, Ena Colliery, Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to in short as “BCCL”) by which the authority has dismissed the representation of the writ petitioner which was filed for correcting his date of birth recorded in his service record. Further prayer pertains to grant of all consequential benefits to the writ petitioner after correcting his date of birth and to quash the retirement notice dated 03/08.07.2014.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-

The respondent-writ petitioner was appointed under BCCL on 20.07.1978. The case of the writ petitioner is that since he was not having matriculation certificate at the time of his appointment, could not submit the same at the time of entry in service and while entering in service the age of the writ petitioner was mentioned as 24 years on 26.07.1978.

The date of birth of the writ petitioner, as recorded in the matriculation certificate, is 01.07.1958, which was issued on 25.06.1975 and calculating the age from the date which was recorded in the matriculation certificate age of the writ petitioner will be 20 years. It is further case of the writ petitioner that the appellant-authorities was knowing about his date of birth, as was recorded in the matriculation certificate, since on the basis of the matriculation certificate itself he got promoted in Grade-III vide office order dated 20.09.1984. But even thereafter no necessary correction has been made in the service record of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner’s further case is that when he knew about wrong recording of his date of birth he contacted the clerk concerned who assured him that the necessary correction would be made on the basis of the terms and conditions as referred in Implementation Instruction No.76. It is further case of the writ petitioner that for one reason or the other no necessary correction has been made in the service excerpts of the writ petitioner while on the other hand retirement notice was served upon the writ petitioner on 03/08.07.2014, communicating him about his date of retirement with effect from 31.07.2014.

The writ petitioner has made representation but to no effect, in consequence thereof writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 454 of 2015 was filed which was disposed of vide order dated 03.07.2017 with a direction upon the appellant-authorities to consider the claim of the writ petitioner in terms of the Implementation Instruction No. 76 by taking a decision and accordingly, if the date of birth is being corrected the writ petitioner will be entitled for reinstatement with back wages. The case of the writ petitioner was considered in terms of the aforesaid order dated 03.07.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 454 of 2015. However, the case of the writ petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13/18.11.2017, which was assailed by the writ petitioner by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1247 of 2018.

The learned Single Judge after considering the submissions made on behalf of the BCCL and after considering the fact regarding the date of birth of the writ petitioner which was recorded as 01.07.1958 in the matriculation certificate as also deprecating the action of the said authorities by not acting in pursuance to the bilateral agreement as under Clause B(i)(a) of the Implementation Instruction No. 76, quashed the order dated 13/18.11.2017 with a direction to verify the genuineness of the matriculation certificate of the petitioner, which is a subject matter o