JUDGMENT :

1. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 05.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2064 of 2010 whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has refused to pass any positive direction upon the respondents-authorities to correct the date of birth of the writ petitioner as 01.07.1959 in place of 01.07.1950.

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

The writ petitioner was appointed under the respondents on 19.06.1980 as Miner Loader at East Katras Colliery. It is claim of the writ petitioner that his date of birth as mentioned in old Form-B register is 01.07.1959 and he had started discharging his duty. The further claim of the writ petitioner is that even in the Coal Mines Provident Fund, i.e. Form-A, the date of birth of the writ petitioner was clearly mentioned as 01.07.1959. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that when the new Form-B Register was made by the concerned respondent-authorities, the signature of the writ petitioner was taken in blank form and later on the contents of the form have been filled up in which the date of birth of the writ petitioner was wrongly been mentioned as 01.07.1950. The writ petitioner came to know about the said fact and thereafter, he made an objection on 29.08.1987 for making correction in the date of birth but no action was taken by the respondents authorities. Similar requests have been made repeatedly before the respondent-authorities but to no effect and a retirement notice was issued to him on 02.01.2010 about his retirement with effect from 01.07.2010. At that juncture, the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by filing a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2064 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the issue of date of birth cannot be allowed to be agitated at the fag end of service as also by considering the fact that the date of birth mentioned in Form-B register has never been objected by the writ petitioner at earlier stage which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal.

3. Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the documents, i.e. old Form-B Register as also the CMPF documents wherein the date of birth of the writ petitioner was recorded as 01.07.1959. It has further been contended that the respondent-authorities while preparing the new Form-B Register has mentioned the date of birth of the writ petitioner by replacing it from 01.07.1959 to 01.07.1950 without any information to the writ petitioner and only when the notice of retirement dated 02.01.2010 communicating the writ petitioner that he will retire with effect from 01.07.2010 was issued, he came to know about the same. However, immediately after coming to know about the same, series of representations were filed but no action has been taken and as such, it cannot be said that the objection about change in the date of birth has been raised by the petitioner at the fag end of service.

4. Per contra Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the BCCL, has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as it is admitted fact as would be evident from the material available on record that the date of birth which was mentioned in the new Form-B Register was as 01.07.1950 and the writ petitioner is claiming the date of birth as 01.07.1959 but no such objection has ever been made in due time rather it is only at the fag end of his retirement the writ petitioner has raised objection by filing representation and as such, it is incorrect to say that the issue raised about correction in t