Order 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant-petitioner raised dispute about his correct date of birth and the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed vide order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.06.2011. However, since there is big gap of age of 15 years as claimed by the writ petitioner, therefore, this Court directed the respondent-Company as well as the appellant to obtain the medical opinion with respect to the age of the petitioner-appellant. 3. The petitioner-appellant obtained the opinion of the Medical Board whereas the respondent-Company also obtained the opinion of the Medical Board with respect to the age of the petitioner-appellant. The Medical Board has opined that the age of the petitioner in the year 2012 may be in between 52 to 55 years and the same is the position in the report obtained by the respondent-Company. 4. In view of the above two reports of Medical Board, the year of the birth of the petitioner comes nearer to the year as claimed by the appellant-petitioner which has been recorded in the petitioner's matriculation certificate i.e., 12.12.1960. 5. In view of this fact and peculiar fact that there is gap of 15 years in the record of the respondent-Company and the matriculation certificate of the appellant-petitioner as well as in the medical reports, therefore, it is held that the petitioner's date of birth is treated to be 12.12.1960. The petitioner can be retired from the service after taking into account his date of birth as 12.12.1960. The order of the petitioner's superannuation i.e., annexure-1 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits. 6. With the above observations, this L.P.A. is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.06.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.