ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner seeks quashing of communication dated 15.9.2006 contained in Annexure-11 by virtue of which he has been directed to file his pension papers as he was supposed to superannuate from 30.9.2007. Petitioner's grievance is that at the time of entry into service, based on School Leaving Certificate, his date of birth has been recorded as 22.3.1952 in the service book. The above entry seems to have been found reflected in many documents including Annexure-6 which is the P.F. Contribution as well as the Civil List of unskilled Khalashi contained in Annexure-7. In terms of the recorded date of birth the petitioner can only be ORDER :ed to superannuate in the year, 2012. Petitioner was quite surprised to receive a decision of the kind and after certain endeavors he came to know that on 29.8.1997 a correction was made in his date of birth by the respondents which stood changed to 27.9.1947 as would be evident from Annexure-9. Petitioner's case is that this is unilateral change incorporated in his service book without any notice or opportunity of hearing to him. 3. If the service book initially at the time of entry into service in the year, 1972 did accept and reflect 22.3.1952 as the date of birth then there is no occasion to refix the same after many years on a so-called medical fitness certificate which was issued by a Civil Assistant Surgeon at the time of appointment. It was open to the respondents if they so wanted, to refix the age and date of retirement based on the medical fitness certificate contained in Annexure-2 at the point of entry into service but the same cannot be invoked after more than two decades to unsettle a settled position and that too without any information and opportunity to petitioner. 4. A counter affidavit stands filed by the respondents where they have tried to take a stand that their action is justified because the petitioner had himself accepted his age to be about 25 years in the year, 1973. Now it is not open for him to resile from that position. 5. 4. A counter affidavit stands filed by the respondents where they have tried to take a stand that their action is justified because the petitioner had himself accepted his age to be about 25 years in the year, 1973. Now it is not open for him to resile from that position. 5. The basic stand of the respondents could have been appreciated or upheld by the Court provided the respondents had relied on the medical fitness certificate issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon at the time of entry into service of the petitioner under the respondents. But since the petitioner had furnished School Leaving Certificate which was accepted and the same stood recorded in the service record then it is difficult for this Court to hold that a chance discovery made by the respondents would entitle them to unilaterally change the date of birth of the petitioner based on Annexure-2. 6. The Court would also like to notice that there are circulars in existence with regard to determination of age of workmen. Details of the same was taken notice of in the case of Prabodh Raut vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in 2007(4) PLJR 52 . If there is a procedure laid down by the Board then the Court does not appreciate the ad hocism resorted to in fixing the date of birth of the petitioner. Since the respondents had unilaterally changed the date of birth in the year 1997 and have ORDER :ed the petitioner to superannuate from 30.9.2007, the decision communicated in Annexure-11 stands quashed. The petitioner's date of birth would be treated to be 22.3.1952. But if there is any serious dispute on it, except for the medical fitness certificate contained in Annexure-11 then the respondents can invoke their power only according to the settled law and rules in this regard. 7. This writ application is allowed.