JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Writ petition filed by the sole respondent raised a vexed issue of fact whether the respondent-writ petitioner was 25 years of age in the year 1984 or 35 years of age. The finding was material for deciding the date of superannuation. The Writ Court has looked into the original service book of the writ petitioner. After looking into the original service book, the counter affidavit and many entries in the subsequent official records such as Identity Card, PAN Card etc., the Writ Court held that petitioners age was 25 in 1984. Accordingly it held that the correction in the service book of the petitioner on 10.9.2009 appeared to be a mischief against the writ petitioner and he cannot superannuate before 2019. The letter of the Food Corporation of India intimating the writ petitioner that he would superannuate on 28.10.2009 was quashed. In the last but one sentence of the order under appeal a typographical error is apparent. The Writ Court as per earlier discussion held that petitioner would normally superannuate on 28.10.2019 but in the order the year has been wrongly typed as 2009. 3. It is always a difficult and complex task for Writ Court to decide an issue of pure fact. Ordinarily it should be avoided. In the case at hand, the authorities of Food Corporation of India, after looking into the relevant documents with them including the service book had come to a conclusion that in the service book the age of the writ petitioner was mentioned only in terms of years and 35 had been manipulated to read as 25 by subsequent overwriting. As to when such manipulation in the service book was done is difficult to be find out or proved. After manipulation, if any, the subsequent documents like Identity Card or PAN Card will understandably be in accordance with manipulation but if there could be any contemporaneous document of admitted existence of 1984 or earlier then that would have definitely carried great weight in deciding the issue. 4. The Writ Court only noticed the original entry in the service book but expressed no opinion as to whether original entry was 25 or 35. 4. The Writ Court only noticed the original entry in the service book but expressed no opinion as to whether original entry was 25 or 35. The Writ Court, as per submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant also did not notice Annexure-B to the counter affidavit which contains a declaration for the purpose of nominating family members as required by Contributory Provident Fund Regulation. The original of that document is also available in the service records of the writ petitioner produced before us. That document appears to be sufficiently old and contains stamp of authorities of the Food Corporation of India on the face of the document and at the back also where the Contributory Provident Fund account number is mentioned as 61/053 followed by the words "Admitted to the fund-1.4.90". 5. No other original contemporaneous document has been produced to help us in determining the issue decided by the Writ Court. 6. After carefully looking at the original documents copies whereof were annexed as Annexures-A and B to the counter affidavit filed by the appellants in the writ case, we come to a conclusion that in the bio-data dated 29.10.1984 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) the age was originally mentioned as 35 years and subsequent overwriting has made it look like 25 years. A perusal of original of Annexure-B also shows that as required by Contributory Provident Fun,d regulation, the age of the writ petitioner was mentioned against Column No. 10 as 35 years with an explanation that it was as per biodata 29.10.1984. Both the documents contained in the original service records appear to be quite old and reliable. 7. In view of the aforesaid documents and discussions, we are of the view that Writ Court erred in declaring the age of the writ petitioner as 25 years in 1984. The fact that it was corrected on 10.9.2009 does not make any difference because actually it was not a correction but a clarification as to the actual age in service book which had got distorted be- cause of overwriting which was clearly a manipulation. We find no illegality in the letter impugned in the writ petition showing that the writ petitioner would superannuate on 28.10,2009. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.