Judgment B.N. Agrawal J. This writ application bas been filed for quashing the order dated 16.11.1993 contained in annexure 1 and that dated 10th December, 1993 contained in annexure 2, whereby, it has been directed that the petitioner has superanudated with effect from 30.6.1993. Further prayer has been made for a declaration that the petitioner's date of birth is 5.7.1942 and not 4.1.1932. 2. The short facts are that the petitioner was appointed initally on the post of (sic) constable Site peon-cum-Choukidar and joined his post on 18.7.1964 under Subdivision-1 officer sone Bridge Subdivision no. 2 W.B.P. wing, Public works department Dehri-on-Sone under the Executive Engineer, Road Division, Dehri-on-Sone. The service roll of the petitioner was opened on 23.3.1966 wherein the petitioner's date of birth has been mentioned as 5.7.1942 which bears the signature of the petitioner. Lateron, the petitioner was appointed as peon and he joined on the said post on 9.2.1971 under Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Patna but thereafter another service book was opened on 18.5.1972 under the signature of one Ram Sakal Prasad, Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Patna Sadar, and in the second service book the petitioner's date of birth has been mentioned as 4.1.1932. 3. According to the date of birth 4th January, 1932, mentioned in the service book of the petitioner, the petitioner was 32 years, six months and 14 days old when he initially joined service in the year 1964 which shows that on the date of first entry into service the petitioner became over age by seven years and few months and no order was passed by the authorities for relaxing the age of the petitioner when he entered service. Evan, subsequently also it appears that no order of relaxation has been passed. 4. Subsequently, it appears that question was raised as to what was the correct date of birth of the petitioner whether 5.7.1942 as mentioned in the first service book or 4.1.1932 as mentioned in the second service book. The concerned Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Organisation, Patna, examined the horoscope and affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner apart from the first service book of the petitioner and thereupon by his order dated 27.1.1990 contained in annexure 4, he came to the conclusion that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 5.7.1942 as mentioned in the first service book. 5. 5. Thereafter, it appears that one Krishna Prasad, who is the nephew of the petitioner, and inimical to the petitioner as several cases are pending between them filed an application before the concerned authority challenging the date of birth as 5.7.1942 mentioned in the first service book of the petitioner, whereupon the petitioner was asked to appear before the Medical Board. The said Krishna Prasad also made a complaint before the learned Lokayukt, Bihar, complaining therein that certain forgery has been committed in the service book of the petitioner upon which comments were invited from the concerned Executive Engineer Upon receipt of the said letter the concerned Executive Engineer reported the aforesaid facts and stated that the petitioner's date of birth in the second service book has been corrected as 5.7.1942 by order passed by the Chief Engineer who was the competent authority. It was further reported by the Executive Engineer that so far question of forgery in the service book is concerned, the petitioner had unblemished service records. 6. According to the statement made in the writ application, 23.4.1993 was fixed for medical examination of the petitioner on which date X-Ray was taken and the petitioner was told that further examination and check up of the petitioner was necessary to ascertain his age but unfortunately, neither on that date any date was fixed for further check up nor the petitioner was subsequently intimated any date for his further check up. It has also been submitted that on 23. 4. 1993, i.e., the first date of medical examination of the petitioner his nephew Krishna Prasad who is inimically disposed agnate of the petitioner was also present in the Civil Surgeon Office to influence the Medical Board. 7. Subsequently, it appears that after check up, the Medical Board sent a report to the concerned Executive Engineer stating therein that the petitioner has been examined by the Medical Board and his age was found between 58-60 years on 4.6.1993. It has no where been stated in the letter as to what was the basis for the Medical Board to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was found between 58-60 years of age. It is not known whether ossification test was held or not. It may be possible that the Medical Board wanted further check up of the petitioner for holding ossification test. 8. It is not known whether ossification test was held or not. It may be possible that the Medical Board wanted further check up of the petitioner for holding ossification test. 8. It is well settle d that ossification test is the best proof to prove the age of a person. There is nothing to show what was the basis for the authorities for changing the date of birth of the petitioner in the second service book as 4.1.1932. It has not been mentioned in any communication which has been enclosed with the writ application that at the time of entering service as peon in the year 1971, the petitioner divulged his date of birth as 4.1.1932 nor it appears that there was any document whatsoever before the authorities to mention the date of birth of the petitioner as 4.1.1932 in the second service book. It appears that when the mistake was detected, the Chief Engineer who was the competent authority had examined the horoscope and affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and corrected the date of birth as 5.7.1942. 9. I really fail to understand what was the basis for the State or its officers to reverse the order passed by the Chief Engineer who was the competent authority. It docs not appear from the impugned order or any evidence that any malafide has been alleged either against the petitioner or against the Chief Engineer who directed for correcting the date of birth of the petitioner in the second service book as 5.7.1947. The authority before changing the date of birth, which has been made on the basis of a valid order passed by a competent authority, has not even bothered to give any notice to the petitioner. 10. Be that as it may, I am of the considered opinion that the authorities have acted in excess of jurisdiction in again changing the date of birth in the second service book of the petitioner merely on the basis of the opinion of the Medical Board specially when the same is not based upon any scientific data as the records do not show that any ossification test was done. 11. In this case, two copies of the writ application were served upon learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on 8.8.1994. 11. In this case, two copies of the writ application were served upon learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on 8.8.1994. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State says that he had sent letters on 12.8.1994 to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Rural Development Department Govt. of Bihar besides. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Rural Development Department. The Executive Engineer, Rural Development Organisation works Division, Patna and Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Orgination, Works Subdivision, Sadar, Patna (respondents 3 to 4) to send instructions for filing counter affidavit. Though, a period of four months has expired but nobody has brothered on behalf of the State to file counter affidavit. 12. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, however, has produced before me the copy of letter dated 20.2.1995 sent by Under Secretary, department of Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar, wherein he has forwarded statement of facts for filing counter affidavit. In the said letter, the Under Secretary has authorised one Sri Lakshmi Narayan Bhakt, Secretary Non-Technical, Engineer-in Chief, Rural Engineering Organisation to swear affidavit. 13. I have gone through the statement of facts. I do not find any such facts have been stated for rejecting the claim of the petitioner in this writ application. Then the letter was shown to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, he accepted the position that this letter along with para wise comments was mace over in the office of the learned Advocate General through peon in the month of February, 1995 itself. These are very serious matters. 14. It appears that the officers of the State have no regard either for this Court or the law laid down in Awadh Kishore Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1994 (1) Patna Law Journal Reports, 335 in which it has been categorically directed by the Division Bench that when the letter is received from the State Counsel for filing counter affidavit, the same must be filed within the time mentioned therein as the State counsel is an Officer of the Court and if there is any violation, the authority, is liable to be hauled up. The Chief Secretary was commanded to circulate copies of that Order to Secretaries of each and every department and Secretaries of each and every departments were directed to circulate copies of the High Court's order to each and every officers/staff working in his department either in the Secretariat or at divisional level, or district level or Sub-divisional level or block level. It was further directed that after service of the copies of the order signature of each and every officers should be taken in the register. This Court candidly gave direction that if any person fails to give instruction to the State counsel, he will he liable to be hauled up. It appears that in spite of the said direction, the State and its officers have no regard at all for this Court. 15. From the aforesaid facts, it becomes clear that prima facie the respondents nos. 1 to 4 besides the aforesaid Lakshmi Narayan Bhakat have committed contempt of Court as they have hampered the administration of justice by not filing the counter affidavit within the time so that cases in the High Court may not be disposed of effectively. 16. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any justification for granting further time to the negligent litigant for filling counter affidavit. Therefore, the prayer for time to file counter affidavit is rejected. 17. From the facts and circumstances, it becomes clear that on the basis of the statements made in this writ application, the petitioner is entitled to grant of writ as the authorities have acted on extreneous consideration in further changing the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book from 5.7.1942 to 4.1.1932 which is not permissible in law. 18. This application is accordingly allowed and the order contained in annexures 1 and 2 are hereby quashed and if pursuant to the aforesaid order any correction has been made in the date .of birth of the petitioner in his second service took from 5.7.1994 to 4.1.1932, the same will be rectified and the petitioner's date I of birth in the second service book shall be (sic) as 5.7.1942. 19. It is stated that the petitioner has discharged his function even after 30th June, 1993 till before 10th of December, 1993, when the order contained in annexure 2 was passed directing there in that the petitioner superannuated on 30th of June, 1993. 19. It is stated that the petitioner has discharged his function even after 30th June, 1993 till before 10th of December, 1993, when the order contained in annexure 2 was passed directing there in that the petitioner superannuated on 30th of June, 1993. The grievance of the petitioner is that though, he has worked between 1.7.1993 and 10.12.1993 but no salary has been paid to him for the aforesaid period. The authorities are directed to made payment of salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 20. It is also stated that from 10th of December, 1993 till this date, the petitioner could not discharge his function because of erroneous orders contained in annexures 1 and 2 passed by authorities for no fault of him, which have been quashed. Therefore, he is entitled to payment of salary from 11.12.1993 till this date, which amount must be paid to him within the aforesaid period. If the petitioner submits joining the same shall be accepted forthwith. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that this is a fit case for issuance of notice against the respondents 1 to 4 to show cause as to why a proceeding for contempt of Court be not initiat against them. 22. Office is directed to register a separate contempt application against the aforesaid respondents. 23. Put up this contempt application for admission on 13-4-1995 at 10.30 A.M. on which date the aforesaid four officer must appear in Court in person. 24. This order must be communicated to the officers concerned by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the state. 25. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of. Application disposed of.