JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Ambar Nath Banerjee for the petitioner, and Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Board. This writ petition is directed against the order bearing memo no. 350, dated 23.6.2006 (Annexure-1), issued by respondent no. 5, whereby he has determined 53 years to be the petitioners age as on 18.9.99 and has accordingly ordered that the petitioner shall superannuate from the services of the Board with effect from 30.9.2006, after completing 58 years of age. 2. According to the writ petition, he had joined the services of the Board in 1968 as a Khalasi. He has received the communication dated 23.6.2006 (Annexure-1), informing him that his age has been determined as 53 years as on 18.9.99, and, therefore, he will superannuate with effect from 30.9.2006. Although he submitted to the order and proceeded on superannuation followed by the present writ petition, the petitioner claims that 16.4.1952 is really his date of birth. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner had joined the services of the Board in 1968 as a Khalasi. His service record was not started in 1968. He then passed Matriculation examination in 1972. Photocopy of the Matriculation certificate is marked Annexure-2 to the writ petition disclosing 16.4.1952 to be his date of birth. Thereafter his service record was started a photocopy of which is marked Annexure-4. The relevant entry of the date of birth records 16.4.1952 to be his date of birth. This was followed by letter dated 16.3.1999 (Annexure-6), whereby the Board informed the petitioner that a Medical Board has been constituted to determine his date of birth. The Medical Board submitted its report, wherein it is stated that he is between 52 to 54 years of age on 18.9.1999. The Board has, therefore, adopted the golden mean and accordingly determined 53 years to be his age on 18.9.99. 4. We first of all deal with the Matriculation certificate and the service record of the petitioner. As stated hereinabove, the petitioner had initially joined in 1968, and his service record was commenced ten years thereafter. In the meantime, he passed the Matriculation examination. 4. We first of all deal with the Matriculation certificate and the service record of the petitioner. As stated hereinabove, the petitioner had initially joined in 1968, and his service record was commenced ten years thereafter. In the meantime, he passed the Matriculation examination. It is evident that after getting into the service, the petitioner had become wiser and ensured that a favourable date of birth is entered into the Matriculation certificate which accounts for 16.4.1952 to be his date of birth. On production of the same, the date of birth was incorporated in his service record. It had naturally aroused suspicion in the minds of the authorities leading to constitution of a Medical Board which has found as above. 5. It appears to me that a Division Bench of this Court in Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Bihar Power Workers Union [ 2000(3) PLJR 65 ], has held that it is settled law that benefit of uncertainty must always go to the weaker side. An employee should get the benefit of lesser age determined by the Medical Board in case of dispute rather than adopting golden mean. The order of the Division Bench binds this Court. In that view of the matter, it is determined that the petitioner was 52 years of age on 18.9.99, and should have been superannuated accordingly. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. The petitioner will be deemed to be 52 years of age on 18.9.99, and shall superannuate accordingly. He will be entitled to the consequential benefits accordingly. Respondent No. 5 shall ensure payment of the consequential benefits within a period of three months from today.