JUDGMENT
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 1.7.2002 (Annexure-7) whereby the petitioner has been informed that he shall retire from service on 30th November, 2002 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years.
2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was appointed as unskilled Khalasi on 21.12.1968. According to the petitioner his date of birth is 22.12.1948 and the same was recorded in the service book. However, later on the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board finding interpolation in the date of birth of the petitioner asked him to appeal before the Media! Board on 1.12.2000 and the Medical Board assessed his age to be between 57 to 59 years on the said day. The respondent-Board, on consideration of the report of the Medical Board, decided that his age on 1.12.2000 would be 58 years i.e. average of the age assessed by the Board and accordingly passed the impugned order.
3. Mr. Jha appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent-Board in subjecting the petitioner for medical examination itself was illegal and the petitioner ought not to have been superannuated from service taking into account the opinion of the Medical Board. In this connection learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the circular of the respondent-Board dated 6.8.1998. He points out that according to the said circular those employees who were appointed below the age of 18 years were required to be superannuated from the service on completion of 42 years and such employees were exempted from the rigour of medical examination. Learned Counsel, however, appearing on behalf of the Board submits that there being interpolation in the service book of the petitioner, he was subjected to medical examination. This fact has been controverted by the petitioner. The original service book has been produced before me and from that it seems that the date of birth i.e. 22.12.1948 as per horoscope was mentioned at later stage. The petitioner has not been subjected to medical examination on account of the fact that while he was appointed in the Board, he was minor but on account of the fact that there is interpolation in the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book. In that view of the matter, respondent-Board did not err in subjecting the petitioner for examination before the Medical Board.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then contends that according to the assessment made by the Medical Board the age of the petitioner was found to be between 57 to 59 year on 1.12.2000 and the respondent-Board ought not to have retired the petitioner taking the average of the same. In support of his submission learned Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 23.4.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4031 of 2002. In the said case it has been held as follows:
Be that as it may the petitioner was finally examined by the medical board which assessed his age on 24.5.2000 to be between 57 and 59 years. The Board, however, has applied the practice of taking the mean of the two limits fixed by the medical board ad has thus determined the petitioner’s age as 58 years on 24.5.2000. This would make 24.5.1942 as the petitioner’s date of birth and he would, therefore, retire on 31.5.2002. On the other hand, if the petitioner’s age is to be taken as 57 years on 24.5.2000 his date of birth would be 24.5.1943 and on that basis he would retire from service on 31.5.2003.
In the service book the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 10.1.1943 and on that basis he will retire on 31.1.2003. In these circumstances I see no justification for taking the mean of the two limits fixed by the Board.
5. Here in the present case the petitioner has been retired from service taking the average of the age as assessed by the Medical Board. In my opinion, the respondent-Board ought to have retired the petitioner taking his age to be 57 years on 1.12.2000. In that view of the matter, the petitioner shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.11.2003.
6. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned order dated 1.7.2002 (Annexure-7) is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to work till 31.11.2003. No costs.