JUDGMENT Rajendra Menon, J. 1. Challenging the action of the Respondents in prematurely 'retiring the Petitioner vide order dated 30.4.2008 - Annexure P/1, and contending that the date of birth of the Petitioner has not been properly recorded, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Petitioner was appointed as a daily rated sweeper in the establishment of the Respondents in the year 1987. After having worked for about 10 years, her services were regularized vide order-dated 30.9.1998 - Annexure P/6. Petitioner is a scheduled caste illiterate woman and it is her case that as her date of birth was not available, Respondents directed the Petitioner to get her date of birth verified by appearing before the Medical Board of J.P. Hospital, Bhopal. Communication in this regard was made to the Petitioner on 21.4.1999, vide Annexure P/2. It is the case of the Petitioner that she appeared and a certificate Annexure P/4 was issued to the Petitioner by the Medical Board. Thereafter, again on 15.1.2002, Petitioner was-directed to appear before the Medical Board for assessing her age. She appeared and the Medical Board gave a certificate - Annexure P/5. In these certificates the age of the Petitioner was indicated to be 30 years as on 1.5.1999 and 33 years as on 2.2.2002. Petitioner invites attention of this Court to the certificates - Annexure P/4 and P/5 in this regard to justify her claim. It is the case of the Petitioner that if her age was 30 years as on 1.5.1999 or 33 years as on 2.2.2002, then her year of birth would be something between the year 1968 and 1969 and she could not have been retired in the year 2008. Inter alia contending that Respondents are retiring the Petitioner by treating her date of birth to be 30.3.1951, as entered in the service book, which is not correct, Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action. 3. Inter alia contending that Respondents are retiring the Petitioner by treating her date of birth to be 30.3.1951, as entered in the service book, which is not correct, Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action. 3. Referring to the medical certificates issued to the Petitioner vide Annexures P/4 and P/5 and the fact that the Petitioner was married only on 9.5.1984 and a daughter was born to her after two years of her marriage in the year 1986 whose date of birth as per the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P., Bhopal vide Annexure P/11 is shown as 13.9.1996, Shri Anoop Shrivastava, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Respondents cannot treat the date of birth of the Petitioner to be 30.3.1951 and retire her prematurely. Referring to the documents filed alongwith the petition and the totality of the circumstances, Petitioner contends that the date of birth recorded as 30.3.1951, allegedly by the Respondents in the service book, is unsustainable and, therefore, the petition be allowed. 4. Respondents have filed reply and it is their case that when the Petitioner entered the service she herself declared her date of birth as 30.3.1951. The said date of birth was recorded in her service book and now she cannot go back on the same. It is further the case of the Respondents and when the Petitioner challenged the entry made in the date of birth vide Annexures P/2 and P/3 on 2.4.1999 and 15.1.2002, Petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board. She appeared before the Medical Board, but on both these occasions the Medical Board issued certificates - Annexures P/4 and P/5 not by conducting any scientific medical examination of the Petitioner, but recorded the age of the Petitioner on her own showing or by her appearance. Referring to the communications made in this regard - Annexures P/4 and P/5, Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the age recorded as 30 year in the year 1999 and 33 years on 2.2,2002 are based on appearance and statement of the Petitioner and not on the basis of any scientific medical examination. Referring to the communications made in this regard - Annexures P/4 and P/5, Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the age recorded as 30 year in the year 1999 and 33 years on 2.2,2002 are based on appearance and statement of the Petitioner and not on the basis of any scientific medical examination. Accordingly, contending that the certificates - Annexures P/4 and P/5 cannot be relied upon for treating the Petitioner to be bom in the year 1968 or 1969 and the date of birth entered in the, service book is the correct date of birth, Respondents resist the claim of the Petitioner. 5. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the records it is seen that when the dispute as canvassed was being considered by this Court, this Court issued two directions. The first direction was issued to the Respondents on 30.6.2010 to get the Petitioner medically examined by an appropriate Medical Board and obtain a report with regard to age of the Petitioner. The second order was issued by this Court on 20.2.2011 directing the Respondents to produce the original service book of the Petitioner for perusal of the Court. As far as medical examination of the Petitioner is concerned, the Petitioner was examined by a Medical Board consisting of Dr. Ashok Sharma, MD, Joint Director of Medicine and Professor, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal and Dr. Sangita Chaurasia, on 1.9.2010, and a report by the Medical Board has been filed before this Court in a sealed cover. 7. As far as production of the original service book is concerned, inspite of the order passed on 2.2.2011 and time granted on 9.2.2011 and again on 21.2.2011, neither the service book is produced in original nor is a photocopy of the same made applicable alongwith the return. That being so, this Court is required to decide the matter on the basis of the material available on record. 8. From the facts that have come on record, it is clear that even though Respondents contend that in the service book of the Petitioner her date of birth is recorded as 30.3.1951 and the said fact is mentioned in the order - Armexure P/1, but the service book in original is not available before this Court. 8. From the facts that have come on record, it is clear that even though Respondents contend that in the service book of the Petitioner her date of birth is recorded as 30.3.1951 and the said fact is mentioned in the order - Armexure P/1, but the service book in original is not available before this Court. Be it as it may be, inspite of the fact that the date of birth is recorded as 30,3.1951 in the service book, Respondents on 21.4.1999 and again on 15.1.2002 vide Annexures P/2 and P/3, directed, the Petitioner to appear before the Medical Board for; assessment of her date of birth. Petitioner did appear before both the Medical Board and both the board instead of conducting a scientific test and examination for assessing the age of the Petitioner for reasons which remain unexplained, simply recorded the age of the Petitioner on the basis other own statement and on the basis of her appearance. This was not correct. When the Respondents themselves had directed the Petitioner to appear before the Medical Board, it was the duty of the Respondents to get the Petitioner medically examined by the board, put her to scientific test and thereafter get the opinion of the Medical Board, with regard to her age. Inspite of the fact that the date of birth of the Petitioner was recorded as 30.3.1951, action of the Respondents in referring the case of the Petitioner to Medical Board clearly indicates that the Respondents were themselves not sure about the exact date of birth of the Petitioner and, therefore, they thought it appropriate to get the Petitioner medically examined by the Medical Board. Once this step was taken by the Respondents, the Respondents cannot go back and by placing reliance on the entry made in the service book, retire the Petitioner without getting her medically examined. Once this step was taken by the Respondents, the Respondents cannot go back and by placing reliance on the entry made in the service book, retire the Petitioner without getting her medically examined. Respondents themselves having taken steps for getting the Petitioner medically examined should have undertaken this exercise in its proper form and having not done so, records indicate that during the pendency of this petition, Petitioner was medically examined by the appropriate Medical Board of Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 30.7.2010 and a detailed medical report is submitted by the authorities of Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal and a perusal of the records indicate that it is a detailed report, running into more than three pages, and a detailed medical examination of the Petitioner in the most scientific manner has been conducted. Minute details have been gone into and finally the opinion given by the Medical Board is based on the physical examination, radiological examination and other scientific examination conducted and the opinion is that the age of the Petitioner as on 1.9.2010 was 40ñ3 years. The report submitted by this Medical Board seems to be authentic and there is no reason for discarding the same. When the Respondents themselves on 21.4.1999 and 15.1.2002 thought it appropriate to get the Petitioner medically examined for assessing her age/date of birth, this Court is of the considered view that the report submitted by the Medical Board on 1.9.2010 should be accepted and advantage of the same should be granted to the Petitioner instead of relying upon the entry made in the service book, as the basis for making the entry made in the service book is not established by the Respondents. The Petitioner is illiterate and, therefore, the entry is not based on any certificate issued by any authority. It is also not the case of the Respondents that the entry was made after medical examination of the Petitioner. 9. Taking note of these circumstances, it is a fit case where the age recorded by the Medical Board on 1.9.2010 should be accepted as the Medical Board has assessed the date of birth of the Petitioner as 40ñ3 years as on 1.9.2010, the age of the Petitioner can be safely construed to be 43 years as on 1.9.2010. 10. 9. Taking note of these circumstances, it is a fit case where the age recorded by the Medical Board on 1.9.2010 should be accepted as the Medical Board has assessed the date of birth of the Petitioner as 40ñ3 years as on 1.9.2010, the age of the Petitioner can be safely construed to be 43 years as on 1.9.2010. 10. Accordingly, this Court holds that the age of the Petitioner be recorded as 43 years as on 1.9.2010 and after making correction in the service records of the Petitioner, Respondents are directed to treat the Petitioner's age to be so and retire her only when she attains the age of superannuation. Order impugned-dated 30.4.2008, prematurely retiring the Petitioner w.e.f. 30.4.2008 treating her date of birth to be 30.3.1951 is quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner and permit her to work upto the age of superannuation treating her age to be 43 years as on 1.9.2010 and all consequential benefit of salary and other benefits be extended to her. 11. The original report of the Medical Board received from Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal on 1.9.2010 is returned back to Learned Counsel for the Respondents as a photocopy of the same is already available on record alongwith LA. No. 11830/2010, filed by the Petitioner. 12. Application stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid.