CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.:-This application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in letter dated 23.5.2003 (Annexure 1) whereby the petitioner has been informed that he shall be attaining the age of 60 years on 29.11.2004 and consequently superannuate from service on 30.11.2004. 2. During the pendency of the application by order dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure-3) petitioner had been superannuated from service with effect from 30.11.2004. By way of amendment (I.A. No. 250 of 2005) he had prayed for quashing of the said order. 3. I.A. No. 250 of 2005 stands allowed. 4. According to the petitioner he was appointed as Unskilled Khalasi in the year 1973 and his date of birth has been entered as 2nd of January, 1948 in the service book. It is his assertion that without any inquiry or giving any opportunity to him the respondents have changed his date of birth as 29.11.1944 in the service book and accordingly, directed for his Superannuation on 30.11.2004 on attaining the age of 60 years. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 in which it has been stated that it came to the notice of the Bihar State Electricity Board that large scale manipulation, cutting and over writing had taken place in regard to the date of birth of the large number of workmen and accordingly, the Board resolved to constitute a Committee to inquire into such cases. According to the respondents, the Committee so constituted examined the case of the petitioner and observed as follows:- "173. Sri Ram Chela-Unskilled Khalasi, Elec. Supply division, Bhabhua. His date of birth is recorded in the service book as 20.9.1948 and 2.1.1948 and the date of appointment is 15.8.1972. The Committee has reported that there is double of date of birth and no basis for recording the date of birth is available. Further the service book appears to be duplicate. Hence, he should be referred to the Medical Board for determination of his age." 6. Accordingly, petitioner was referred to the Medical Board which determined his age between 54-56 (55 years) on 29.11.1999. Taking into account the average age determined by the Medical Board, the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book was entered as 29.11.1944 and on that basis by the impugned communication he was asked to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2004. 7. Taking into account the average age determined by the Medical Board, the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book was entered as 29.11.1944 and on that basis by the impugned communication he was asked to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2004. 7. This Court by order dated 23.11.2004 made the retirement of the petitioner subject to the result of the writ petition. a. Mr. Anil Jayaswal appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that once the date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 2.1.1948 in the service book same ought not to have been altered on the basis of the determination of the age of the petitioner by the Medical Board. He points out that petitioner was not informed that he had to appear before the Medical Board for determination of his age and, as such, the determination of age by the Medical Board shall not govern the field. 9. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Dutt appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, contends that petitioner appeared before the Board and at no point of time protested to the determination of the age by the Medical Board and only after the impugned notice was given to the petitioner he has chosen to challenge the same. He submits that in such circumstance the determination of the age by the Medical Board cannot be questioned in support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court. In the case of Megh Raj Singh Vs. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Others, [ 2000(4) PLJR 409 ]. 10. Having appreciated the rival submission, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Jayaswal, Petitioner appeared before the Medical Board which determined his age as back as on 29.11.1999. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner ever protested the determination of his age by the Medical Board. 11. In that view of the matter. I am of the opinion that the determination of age by the Medical Board cannot be said to be illegal and the entry made on the basis in the service book cannot be faulted. The view which I have taken finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Megh Raj Singh case (supra). 12. Mr. I am of the opinion that the determination of age by the Medical Board cannot be said to be illegal and the entry made on the basis in the service book cannot be faulted. The view which I have taken finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Megh Raj Singh case (supra). 12. Mr. Jayaswal submits that the benefits of lessor age as determined by the Medical Board is to be given .to the petitioner and as the Medical Board had determined his age between 54-56 years on 29.11.1999, his age should be determined as 54 years on 29.11.1999 and on that basis his date of birth ought to have been recorded as 29.11.1945. In support of the submission he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in case of Megh Raj Singh case (supra) and my attention has been drawn to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment which read as follows:- "6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of the principle decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Bihar Powers Workers Union, reported in 2000(3) PLJR 65 : 2000(2) BLJ 57 , that in case of computation of age under such circumstances where the Medical Board has determined the age between 58 to 60 years, the benefits of lesser age shall go' to the employee. As such it has been submitted that even on the basis of the report of the Medical Board, the petitioner's age on 21.11.1998 shall be 58 years and the Board has committed error in determining his age by taking into account the average of the age determined by the Medical Board. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the settled principle, learned counsel for the Board has not been able to defend the impugned action of the respondent Board in determining the petitioners age on the basis of average of the age found by the Medical Board. 13. Mr. Dutt, however, contends that in the fact of the present case respondents did not err in determining his age on the basis of average of age determined by the Medical Board. 14. Having considered the rival contention, I find substance in the submission of Mr. 13. Mr. Dutt, however, contends that in the fact of the present case respondents did not err in determining his age on the basis of average of age determined by the Medical Board. 14. Having considered the rival contention, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Jayaswal and the decision relied on clearly supports his case. According to the Medical Board the age of the petitioner was between 54 to 55 years. The respondents have determined his age on its average and accordingly, found the date of birth of the petitioner to be 29.11.1944. As the benefit of lesser age has to be given to the petitioner, his date of birth has to be determined as 29.11.1945 and he is entitled to superannuate from service on that basis. 15. In the result, the writ application is partly allowed, impugned order dated 23.5 2005 (Annexure 1) and (Annexure-3) are quashed and respondents are directed to continue him in service treating his date of birth to be 29.11.1945. Petitioner shall also be entitled for the consequential benefits. No cost.