Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for an appropriate direction or writ to quash Annexure-5 and 6 annexed to the writ application by virtue of which the petitioners age has been refixed after subjecting him to a Medical Board, which was in the year 2000. 3. The petitioner was an employee of the State Electricity Board and was appointed as unskilled Khalasi in the year 1972. It is his case that his date of birth is 22.8.1951, which is borne out from the school leaving certificate as well as the service-book. A xerox copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2. The petitioner has further brought on record some more evidence to show that the date of birth, which has been recorded in the service-book is the correct date of birth. Subsequently, in the year 1998 onwards large scale disputes seems to have arisen with regard to the date of birth which was recorded in the service-book of various employees or as the Board says that there were certain discrepancies which made the date of birth doubtful and ^required refixation of the age of the employees by holding a Medical Board. In the case of the petitioner, on a perusal of Annexure-5, it emerges that by letter dated 23.10.2000 he along with others were directed to appear before a Medical Board for establishment of their age and it is stated in the letter that if they refuse to do so their salaries from the month of November onwards would be stopped. Thereafter the petitioner appeared before the constituted Medical Board consisting of three doctors from Forensic, Radiology and Orthopedics Department from S.K.M.C.H., Muzaffarpur and the opinion of the Board was that the age of the petitioner stands between 53-55 years of age, the average age being 54 years. Based on this opinion of the Medical Board the petitioner was superannuated on 30.11.2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was no occasion to subject the petitioner to Medical test because prima facie there was no dispute as such with regard to the age which was entered in his service-book. Based on this opinion of the Medical Board the petitioner was superannuated on 30.11.2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was no occasion to subject the petitioner to Medical test because prima facie there was no dispute as such with regard to the age which was entered in his service-book. However, counsel for the Board has stated in the counter affidavit that a perusal of the service book goes to show that age has been written doubtfully and, therefore, the petitioner was sent to the Medical Board for determination of his age. The "counter affidavit further states that the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Board after more than 4-5 years after accepting the position and further since he did not protest or resist subjecting himself to a Medical Board earlier, there is no occasion for this Court to go behind the decision of holding Medical Board and redetermining his age. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on many judgments of this Court, some of them being reported in 2004(4) PUR 409 in the case of Megh Raj Singh vs. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna & Ors. 2005(3) PLJR 325 in the case of Mehdi Mirza vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. and 2006(1) PLJR 65 in the case of Ram Chela vs. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Bailey Road Patna & Ors. He submits that there is a consistent view of this Court that if an employee subjects himself to a Medical Board without any protest and accepts the position, it is not open to him to challenge the decision of the Medical Board at a subsequent stage. When questioned at Bar as well as on perusal of the record nothing emerges to show that the petitioner at any point of time raised his objection or went before the Medical Board with protest reserving his right in case the decision went against him allowing him legal remedy to which he could have taken recourse too. 5. That being the position and with the consistent view this Court has taken, on such issue that once an employee has subjected himself to medical board without objection, it is not open to challege by him later, this Court is unable to grant any relief to the petitioner. 6. Further, however, there is another aspect to this dispute. 5. That being the position and with the consistent view this Court has taken, on such issue that once an employee has subjected himself to medical board without objection, it is not open to challege by him later, this Court is unable to grant any relief to the petitioner. 6. Further, however, there is another aspect to this dispute. In matters where an age has been determined by a Medical Board the lower age or the lesser age determined by the Medical Board has to be given to the petitioner. This has been the principle decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar Electricity Board vs. Bihar Power Workers Union & Ors., 2000 (3) PLJR 65 . It was held by the Court, "that in case of computing of age under such circumstances where a Medical Board has determined the age between 58-60 years, the benefit 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 petitioners age on 21.12.1998 shall be 58 years and the Board has committed error in determining his age and take into account the average of the age determined by the Medical Board". 7. This Court in view of the above decision of the Division Bench comes to a conclusion that the Electricity Board has committed an error by superannuating the petitioner by taking an average age determined by the Medical Board. The Medical Board has determined the age of the petitioner between 53-55 years in the year 2000 and the average age was taken to be 54 years. This in the view of this Court, as well as in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Bihar Electricity Board vs. Bihar Power Workers Union & Ors. (supra) was an error committed by the Electricity Board. The benefit of lesser age that is 53 years on the date of determination should have been given to the petitioner and not the average age which has been done in the case of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioners age should be recorded as 53 years on the date of determination and consequently his date of retirement/ superannuation should be re-worked out by the Board. In that view of the matter, the petitioners age should be recorded as 53 years on the date of determination and consequently his date of retirement/ superannuation should be re-worked out by the Board. The petitioners retirement shall accordingly be extended by one year, in view of the lesser age and all consequential benefits due to re-determination of his date of superannuation shall be granted to him within the time fixed by this Court which should not be later than three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner has still some service left then he shall be taken back in service and he shall be paid all benefits which accrues to him as if he never superannuated from service. 8. It was further submitted by counsel for the respondent Board that in case his retiral dues and pension has already been fixed and paid to him the same shall be adjusted towards the salary and such allowance to which he is entitled too. This is very fair stand which has been taken by the counsel for the Board and the Court has no objection to the Board adjusting such amount, if it has already been paid to the petitioner by virtue of his superannuation. 9. This writ application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.