ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter No. 915 dated 28.4.2000, whereby petitioner was informed that he will be superannuated on 30.11.2000 on the basis of age assessed by the Medical Board.
3. Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed in 1964 as unskilled Khalasi. After appointment his age was ascertained by the doctor duly appointed by the respondents and his date of birth was recorded in the service-book as 17.4.1942. On the basis of entry made in the service-book respondents issued identity card wherein date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 17.4.1942. Surprisingly, in 1999 respondents vide letter dated 16.6.1999 directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board to ascertain the age. Since petitioner was in service he could not disobey the directions of the respondents and accordingly he appeared before tin: Medical Board on 3.11.1999. In the medical examination the age of the petitioner was assessed as 58-60 (59) as on 3.11.1999. In other words the date of birth of the petitioner was assessed as 1940. Immediately thereafter the impugned letter was issued on 28.4.2000 whereby the petitioner was informed that he shall be superannuated on 30.11.2000.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein the initial (sic) of the petitioner in 1964 and issuance of identity card regarding date of birth as 17.4.1942 has not been denied or disputed by the respondents. It is stated that taking into consideration regarding release of the retirement benefit and settlement of dispute regarding manipulation in date of birth of the petitioner caused suspicion about the date of birth of the petitioner and therefore he was subjected to medical examination. On the basis of assessment made by the Medical Board petitioner was informed about his date of superannuation accordingly.
5. As noticed above, petitioner was appointed in 1964 when his date of birth was
assessed by the doctor deputed by the respondents for that purpose and his date of birth was recorded as 17.4.1942. The date of birth was never challenged by the respondents at any point of time till 1999 i.e. for about 35 years. For the first time at the fag end of the retirement of the petitioner, respondents doubted the correctness of the date of birth of the petitioner and therefore he was subjected to medical examination. The Medical Board assessed the age of the petitioner as 58-60 (59) years. Taking 59 years as the age of the petitioner in 1999 the respondents presumed the date of birth of the petitioner as 1940 and on that basis issued impugned letter of superannuation. In my opinion such action of the respondents is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and malafide. It is well settled that at the fag end of the service, an employee can not raise dispute with regard to correctness of his date of birth, why not the same principle will apply to the employer also, the employer at the fag end of service of (sic) cannot accept the age assessed by Medical Board (sic) letter of superannuation without giving opportunity of hearing to the employee. As noticed above the Medical Board Assessed the age of the “petitioner in 1999 as 58-60 (59) years. In my opinion, the Medical Board would have no answer if the age of the petitioner is taken as 57 years in 1999. The assessment of age by the Medical Board always subject to variation of 1-2 years. Therefore if the age of the petitioner is taken as 57 years in 1999 then his date of birth would be 1942. In that view of the matter also there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the petitioner that his date of birth was assessed in 1964 as 17.4.1942. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case, I have no doubt in my mind to accept the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the year 1964 as 17.4.1942 which should not have been disturbed by the respondents merely because of some suspicion.
6. This writ application Is therefore allowed and the impugned order superannuating the petitioner with effect from 30.11.2000 is quashed. It is held that the petitioner shall superannuate after attaining age of 60 years taking his date of birth as 17.4.1942.
7. Application allowed.