JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (a) For quashing the order dated 08.09.1997 passed by the Director of Personnel (Annexure-13) rejecting the claim of the petitioner regarding his date of birth. (b) For a direction to the respondents to fix the date of birth of the petitioner as 12.08.1944 and to allow the petitioner to continue in service till his superannuation on 31.08.2004 with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he was appointed on the post of skilled Khalasi in the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for the sake of brevity) in the year 1964 and at the time of his appointment his date of birth was given as 12.08.1944. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Line man on 28.12.1975, whereafter tentative gradation list of junior Line men under Electrical Circle Bhagalpur was prepared on 09.08.1978 in which date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 12.08.1944. In the service book also same date of birth of the petitioner was shown on 08.11.1965 and 19.08.1991. In the next year i.e. in 1992, civil list of Bhagalpur Electrical Circle of the Board was prepared in which the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 12.08.1944. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 17.02.1994, the Deputy Personnel Director of the Board directed the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Munger to get the medical examination of all such employees, including the petitioner, for ascertaining their age, whereafter the Medical Board examined the petitioner on 21.02.1994 and submitted its report dated 26.04.1994 holding the age of the petitioner to be 54-56 years on 26.04.1994 and accordingly the respondents-authorities changed the date of birth of the petitioner in his service book from 12.08.1944 to 12.08.1938 assuming his maximum age i.e. 56 years in 1994. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that against the aforesaid act of the authorities, the petitioner filed CWJC No.10180 of 1994 and a bench of this Court vide order dated 04.09.1995 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to constitute a proper Medical Board and determine the age of the petitioner afresh and pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that for about two years, no Medical Board was constituted and in the meantime vide order dated 04.12.1996, the respondents-authorities directed the salary of the petitioner to be withheld from November, 1996 as long as his age is not determined. However, when the petitioner objected to the said act of the authorities they formed a Medical Board, which examined the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner fixed age of the petitioner between 58-60 years on 14.01.1997. On its basis the authority concerned decided on 14.02.1997 that the date of birth of the petitioner was 14.01.1937 and hence he had retired in January, 1997. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also averred that against the aforesaid order also the petitioner moved this Court vide CWJC No.2500 of 1997 and after hearing the parties, a Bench of this Court quashed the aforesaid order of the authorities dated 04.02.1997 and directed the authorities vide order dated 13.08.1997 to consider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to decide it by a speaking order. It was also directed in that order that the two medical reports and the service book must be made available to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further claimed that after the said order he filed an application dated 28.09.1997 before the authorities requesting them to give him an opportunity to inspect two medical reports and service book as per the High Court order, but the authorities did not pay any heed to the petitioner. In this connection, it was also claimed that in earlier CWJC No.10180 of 1994 also the then medical report was not furnished by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his written statement on 01.09.1997. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the authorities sent information letter dated 15.09.1997 to the petitioner along with order of the Director of Personnel of the Board dated 08.09.1997 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the following grounds:- (i) Original medical report dated 14.01.1997 was shown to the petitioner; (ii) overwriting in the service book; (iii) no mention of date of birth in service book record till 1970; (iv) horoscope produced by the petitioner was not relied upon in the writ petition; (v) upper age limit was fixed after consideration of medical report dated 14.01.1997. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that neither the reports of Medical Board nor the service book of the petitioner were shown to him in spite of specific direction of the High Court and also in spite of application filed by the petitioner in that regard, clearly because the two earlier medical reports dated 26.04.1994 and 14.01.1997 were contradictory to each other giving vague and unreliable estimation. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Jaya Mala Vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. reported in AIR 1982 SC 1297 . 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the petitioner had produced in his horoscope as Annexure-1 to earlier CWJC No.10180 of 1994 and hence the authorities were quite wrong in assuming that horoscope was not relied upon by the petitioner. In addition to that in his service book also the date of birth of the petitioner was clearly mentioned as 12.08.1944 as far as back on 08.11.1965 which was completely ignored by the authority. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in any view of the matter, there was no occasion for the authorities to fix the highest age as per the estimation of the medical report, as the law is well settled that lower age limit as per such estimation had to be taken for calculating the date of birth of such person. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of a Bench of this Court in case of Atmanand Singh Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others reported in 1997(2) PLJR 417 . 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that although it is claimed by the petitioner that on 08.11.1965 his service book was opened noting his date of birth as 12.08.1944 and the same date of birth was noted later in words also on 19.08.1991, but in the civil list of Bhagalpur Circle circulated in the Department, no date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned. Hence, till 1970 no entry of petitioner’s date of birth was existing in his service book and the noting in the service book dated 08.11.1965 was clearly interpolation due to which the authorities had ordered estimation of his age by competent Board which was done on 26.04.1994 when his age was estimated to be 54-56 years. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per order of the High Court dated 04.09.1995 passed in CWJC No.10180 of 1994 a Medical Board was formed which after examination of the petitioner submitted its report dated 14.01.1997 estimating the age of the petitioner to be 58-60 years on that date. Furthermore as per the second order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 13.08.1997 passed in CWJC No.2500 of 1997 also the matter was re-considered after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and the claim of the petitioner having found to be wrong, the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 08.09.1997 which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 15.09.1997. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents claimed that the medical reports and the service book were kept on record on 28.09.1997 as per the order of the High Court and was perused by the authorities while passing the impugned order. Moreover, the differences in the two reports dated 26.04.1994 and 14.01.1997 was negligible being about a year only. On the other hand neither any date had been provided in the horoscope produced by the petitioner nor for any other reason whatsoever it can be held to be reliable, whereas the report of the Medical Board had been prepared after the petitioner was examined by the experts and hence it was more reliable and the authorities were justified in basing their decision on the said legal and valid reports. 15. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that from the civil list of 1970, it is quite apparent that no date of birth of the petitioner had been mentioned therein only because no date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned on the records, including service book before that date and hence the authorities were quite justified in holding that the entry dated 08.11.1965 in the service book showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 12.08.1944 was a clear interpolation which was subsequently made after 1970 and hence the petitioner cannot be legally allowed to take advantage of any such illegality committed by him. 16. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, the dispute between the parties appears to be only with respect to the date of birth of the petitioner which the petitioner claims to be 12.08.1944 and the respondents now hold it to be 14.01.1937. 17. The petitioner’s claim with regard to his aforesaid date of birth dated 12.08.1944 is based on undated horoscope (Annexure-1), entry in the service book on 08.11.1965 (Annexure-2) and another entry in the said service book dated 19.08.1991 (Annexure-4) under the signature of the Electrical Executive Engineer, the tentative gradation list of Junior Linemen under Bhagalpur Circle dated 09.08.1978 (Annexure-3) and the final civil list of 1992 (Annexure-5) and in all of them the date of birth of the petitioner had been noted as 12.08.1944. 18. On the other hand, the claim of the respondents is based only on the civil list of Bhagalpur Circle of 1970 in which no date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned and on that basis it was presumed that till 1970 there was no entry of petitioner’s date of birth in the service book and thereafter interpolation was made by him. However, neither there is any material to show nor there is any specific allegation made against the petitioner that he either himself or through any one else got the said interpolation made in the service book nor except the said civil list of 1970 there was any material to assume that the date of birth was not earlier mentioned in the service book. 19. Whenever a person is appointed his date of birth is immediately recorded and accordingly service book is prepared. 19. Whenever a person is appointed his date of birth is immediately recorded and accordingly service book is prepared. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1964 and his service book was opened in the year 1965 and hence in normal circumstances, the date of birth was to be recorded in 1965 itself. From a perusal of Annexure-2 and Annexure-4 to the writ petition it appears that first is a copy of the petitioner’s service book dated 08.11.1965 in which the date of birth of the petitioner is clearly noted as 12.08.1944 in the same handwriting in which other entries are made and there appears to be no interpolation. Annexure-4 is also a copy of the petitioner’s service book in which the said date of birth has been noted in words also and below it the Electrical Executive Engineer had put his sign and seal on 19.08.1991. In the said circumstances, if the authorities had any doubt with respect to the entry of the year 1965 in the service book the said doubt was fully cleared by the subsequent authentication by the authority concerned which the respondents have no where denied. 20. In addition to the aforesaid entries in the service book the petitioner has annexed tentative gradation list of 1978 (Annexure-3) and final gradation list of 1992 (Annexure-5) and in both of them the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 12.08.1944. These are the admitted documents of the respondents themselves and are not denied. Hence, it was not justifiable on the part of the authorities to doubt about the date of birth of the petitioner much later in the year 1994 merely on the basis of non-mentioning of date of birth of the petitioner in the civil list of Bhagalpur Circle of 1970 completely ignoring that it might have been a mistake by the person making the entry and that other documents were available on record to show his age. In the said circumstances, the authorities concerned, namely Deputy Personnel Director of the Board was not justified in asking the Superintending Engineer Electrical Circle, Munger to get the petitioner medically examined as there was no justifiable reason to doubt the entries in his service book. 21. In the said circumstances, the authorities concerned, namely Deputy Personnel Director of the Board was not justified in asking the Superintending Engineer Electrical Circle, Munger to get the petitioner medically examined as there was no justifiable reason to doubt the entries in his service book. 21. Now, there are two medical reports, one of 26.04.1994 estimating the age of the petitioner between 54-56 years and the other is of 14.01.1997 estimating the age of petitioner between 58-60 years. Both the said reports are clearly contradictory to each other and a bare perusal of those reports also show absence of valid investigation which has to be done before estimating the age of a person. Hence, there is no occasion for relying upon such age estimation reports, which appear to be unscientific and in any view of the matter each of them contradicts the finding and estimation of the other. 22. The bias of the authorities concerned against the petitioner is also evident from the fact that as per the subsequent report dated 14.01.1997 the age of the petitioner was between 58 to 60 years i.e. he was born between the year 1937 and 1939 and on the basis of the said report, the authorities took the highest age fixing his date of birth as 14.01.1937. At the time of earlier age estimation of 1994 also the same attitude was adopted by the authorities concerned taking the highest age as per that estimation. The settled principle of law in that regard as has been held in case of Atmanand Singh (supra) is that in such doubtful cases the benefit must accrue to the weaker side, i.e. the person who is going to suffer and in the instant case it is obvious that the weaker side who is going to suffer is non else than the petitioner. Thus, it was the duty of the respondents to fix the lower age limit, in which they knowingly and repeatedly failed. 23. Thus, it was the duty of the respondents to fix the lower age limit, in which they knowingly and repeatedly failed. 23. From the chronology of events it appears that earlier when the petitioner filed objection in the year 1994 his year of birth was estimated between 1938 and 1940 but when he filed his writ petition in the year 1997, his year of birth was pushed back as between 1937 and 1939 and when he filed the second writ petition the highest age limit was fixed as 14.01.1937 so that the petitioner may be shown to have retired before the passing of the impugned order dated 08.09.1997. 24. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that the authorities concerned had been throughout acting illegally against the petitioner unnecessarily doubting the service book in which no interpolation is found by this Court and unnecessarily forcing the petitioner for medical examinations. The medical reports also appear to be not scientific and reliable and moreover they are contradictory to each other. Hence no authority or finality can be legally attached to any of them. 25. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders of the authorities are hereby rejected and the respondents are directed to fix the date of birth of the petitioner as 12.08.1944 and also to fix his date of superannuation after completion of 60 years from 12.08.1994. The respondents-authorities are also directed to give all the consequential benefits both financially and otherwise for the period of pre and post retirement as per the said date of birth to the petitioner from the date he was illegally forced to retire till his actual date of superannuation, i.e. 31.08.2004 within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.