JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia sought for quashing of the order vide letter no.960 dated 31.12.2014 issued by respondent no.5, whereby petitioner has been retired from his service, pursuant to letter dated 13.11.2014 issued by respondent no.4, prematurely retiring the petitioner before attaining the age of 60 years, and has further prayed for direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue till attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 31.01.2018, as per the Matriculation Certificate and the date of birth entered in his service book, with all consequential benefits. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been delineated in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Night Guard in the year 1972. During his continuance on the said post he passed Matriculation Examination in the year 1980 and his date of birth as per the Matriculation Certificate is 12.01.1958 which was also entered in the service book. The petitioner retired prematurely on 31.12.2014 as Accounts Clerk, vide letter dated 31.12.2014 issued by the respondent no.5 whereby the petitioner has been asked to hand over the charge to one Sona Ram Mahto, Store Keeper as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is impugned in this writ application. Thereafter, letter dated 31.12.2014 was issued to the petitioner stating inter alia that after completion of 42 years, petitioner’s services was sought to be curtailed on 31.12.2014 vide Annexure3 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned letters, the petitioner submitted his representation to respondent no.3 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application but the said representation appears to have fallen on the deaf ears and being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order dated 31.12.2014 issued by the respondents has subjected the petitioner to be deprived of rightful claim for continuing in services till completion of 60 years of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents smacks of arbitrary exercise of power because the decision of the respondents has unilaterally shortened the services for not attaining the age of 60 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents smacks of arbitrary exercise of power because the decision of the respondents has unilaterally shortened the services for not attaining the age of 60 years. In order to buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court reported in 2003 (1) JCR 320 (Jhr.), 2007 (3) JLJR 726 (FB) and 2017 (2) JBCJ 656 (FB). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has referred to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, more particularly Annexure-R/1 dated 29.03.1980, the office order shows that the petitioner has already taken leave for appearing in the Matriculation Examination and he has been allowed leave from 07.04.1980 to 06.05.1980 for 30 days as per the Service Code 227 and during the intervening period the salary of the petitioner has been allowed, as evident from Annexure-R/1 to the rejoinder. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the supplementary affidavit dated 24.03.2017 where the date of superannuation of a Government servant as per notification dated 03.10.2012, vide Annexure-5, enhancing the age from 58 years to 60 years has been annexed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 13.11.2014 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Drawing, Planning and Monitoring Circle, Jamshedpur, is not the competent authority to issue the same, inasmuch as the appointing authority on sanctioned post of Class-III and IV employees in Circle, Division, Sub-Division and Branch Office is Chief Engineer as evident from enclosure Schedule-Ka annexed with resolution bearing Memo no.862 dated 28.04.1983 issued by the Advisor cum Commissioner and Secretary of the Government, Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, vide Annexure-6 to the said affidavit. Basing on the aforesaid resolution, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision which has been taken by the Superintending Engineer is bereft of his competence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-7 whereby the letter dated 01.07.2015 issued from the office of the Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand indicates that the services of the petitioner before attaining 18 years has been considered under child category and perusal of Annexure-8 of the supplementary affidavit, would go to show that date of birth as recorded in the School Leaving Certificate is 12.01.1958 has been verified and found correct. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner before attaining the age of 60 years is contrary to Rule 73 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. 6. Repudiating the contentions made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been submitted that there was some manipulation in the order of date of birth of the petitioner in the service book, for which the petitioner was noticed by the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division No.5, Dimna, Jamshedpur vide letter dated 21.03.2014, whereby the petitioner was asked to clarify certain points as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Further it has been submitted that other employees of Subernerekha Canal Division no.5, Jamshedpur lodged a written complaint dated 26.06.2014 written to the Chief Minister, Jharkhand wherein it is complained that on the basis of forged birth certificate the petitioner is trying to continue in his employment as per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Further it has been submitted that the Superintending Engineer, Design, Planning and Monitoring Circle, Jamshedpur through his letter dated 13.11.2014 sought for certain enquiries from the Deputy Director, Quality Control Division, Jamshedpur with regard to manipulation of date of birth of the petitioner. A copy of the said letter was also sent to the Chief Engineer, Subernrekha Multipurpose Project, Chandil Complex, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, vide Annexure-C to the counter affidavit and the letter of the Chief Engineer dated 23.12.2014 requesting the Deputy Director, Quality Control Division, Jamshedpur to provide the reports as sought for by the Superintending Engineer as per Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. 7. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein certain clarifications has been made that due to inadvertence, instead of superannuation, the word termination has been mentioned in the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that on the query of the audit objection, since the appointment of the petitioner was below 18 years as per the date of birth recorded in the service excerpts, the appointment of the petitioner has been manipulated, therefore, appropriate steps has been taken by the respondents to superannuate the petitioner from the service on 31.12.2014 on completion of 42 years of service. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner served for 42 years and on the basis of date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate, it appears to be doubtful, therefore, the respondents have taken the right decision in superannuating the petitioner on 31.12.2014. 9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the pleading and also the service book as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been illegally superannuated from the service, before attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years of service. 10. Admittedly no rules or guidelines have been prescribed by the State for superannuation of a Government employee on completion of 42 years of service. The age of superannuation has been prescribed under Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code in terms of which a person stands retired on attaining the age of 58 years which has been enhanced to 60 years. There is nothing on record to suggest that any rule or guideline was in vogue prescribing minimum age of 18 years when the petitioner was appointed in the year 1972. 11. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Patna High Court in Mokhtar Ahmad vs. B.S.R.T.C., reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 183 . The Hon’ble Patna High Court taking into consideration the provisions of Rules 54 and 73 of the Bihar Service Code, held that an employee stands superannuated only on attaining the age of superannuation and cannot be retired on the ground of completion of 42 years of service. The same view has been taken by this Court in the case of Kalanand Jha vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors, reported in 2001 (2) JLJR 297 . 12. Recently, the decision which has been passed by Full Bench of this Court in case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. The same view has been taken by this Court in the case of Kalanand Jha vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors, reported in 2001 (2) JLJR 297 . 12. Recently, the decision which has been passed by Full Bench of this Court in case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Arun Kumar Dhar reported in 2017 (2) JBCJ 656 (FB), wherein the Hon’ble Court by referring to Rule 73 of the Jharkhand Service Code has been pleased to hold: (i) In view of the specific provision in Rule 73 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, providing the age of compulsory retirement as 60 years (now), a regular Government servant holding the post in substantive capacity, even if appointed prior to the age of 18 years, cannot be superannuated before actually attaining the age of 60 years according to his date of birth recorded in his service records, irrespective of his length of service, treating his age to be 18 years on the date of his appointment. (ii) In absence of any provision in the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, prohibiting the appointment of a Government servant prior to the age of 18 years, the appointment of a person prior to attaining the age of 18 years, cannot be said to be against Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 read with Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875. (iii) Jharkhand Service Code, being a complete Code in itself, and Rule 73 thereof being specific and unambiguous in its terms, there is no scope of taking help of any other law or rule for drawing any inference that the intention of the Legislature was to allow only 40 years (or 42 years now) of service, as the maximum period of service, to which a Government servant can be allowed to continue in Government service. Accordingly, even if a person enters into the service prior to the age of 18 years, he shall be entitled to continue in service, until he actually attains the age of 60 years as per his date of birth recorded in his service records, which is the prescribed age of compulsory retirement from service, irrespective of his length of service. 13. 13. So far as date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate is concerned, a conclusive proof of age, has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey vs. M/s B.C.C.L reported in 2007 (3) JLJR 726 . On perusal of the service record of the petitioner, there is absolutely no doubt that the date of birth as recorded in Matriculation Certificate has been recorded in the service book and the veracity of the Matriculation certificate has not been doubted. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned letter no.960 dated 31.12.2014 issued by respondent no.5 and letter dated 13.11.2014 issued by respondent no.4 being illegal, are quashed and set aside and the petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing in service up to 60 years of age on the basis of date of birth recorded in the service book and will be entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears of salary in respect to the period he was forced to remain out of service. 14. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions.