Order Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner prayed for issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondent not to change or alter the date of birth of the petitioner which has been recorded in the service record merely on the ground of assessment of age of the petitioner by the Medical Board. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Peon in the respondent Electricity Board in 1967. A service record was opened ill which his date of birth was shown as 31.12.50. The school certificate also mention tile same date of birth. However, in 1999 the respondent vide letter dated 24.8.99 directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board for the purpose of assessing the age. Since the petitioner was in service, he could not disobey the direction and appeared before the Medical Board who assessed his age as 54-55 years on 11.9.99. On the basis of said assessment the respondent threatened to change his date of birth in the service record. 4. A very cryptic and vague counter affidavit has been filed by the Board wherein it is stated that there appear some manipulation and overwriting in the service record of the petitioner particularly the date of birth which was taken note by the committee of the Board and in such cases direction was issued for examination of the employees by Medical Board. Consequently the date of birth of the petitioner was assessed as 11.9.44. 5. As noticed above a copy of service record is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ application. The date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 31.12.50. There is no interpolation or correction in the said date of birth. However, in the copy of the another service record filed by the respondents there is some interpolation in the column of date of birth. But the date of birth has been shown as 31.12.50. 6. Be that as it may. A very important fact stated in this writ petition has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioner's own elder brother is in the service of the respondent and he will superannuate some time in 2006 while the petitioner will be compelled to superannuate in 2004 taking his date of birth as 1944 on the basis of assessment made by the Medical Board. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that the elder brother of the petitioner is in the service of the respondent and he will superannuate in 2006 on the basis of his date of birth as 1946. In my opinion therefore, the purported action of the respondent in superannuating the petitioner in 2004 is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. 7. For the aforesaid reason this writ application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner will superannuate on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the service record i.e. 31.12.1950.