IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.115 of 2011 Ram Swarup Singh @ Ram Swarup Yadav son of Late Sukhnath Yadav @ Sukhlal Yadav, resident of village-Vishunpura, P.S.-Tarari, Dist.-Bhojpur at present P.S. Imadpur, District Bhojpur at Ara .................………Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Collector, Bhojpur, Arrah. 2. The Deputy Collector Incharge, General Section, Bhojpur at Arrah. 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Aarrah, District-Bhojpur. 4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Piro, District-Bhojpur…………….Respondents ----------- 5. 4.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment and order of writ Court dated 5th September, 2010 whereby writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1252/1996 has been dismissed because the writ Court was not inclined to reopen the issue for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner as in the service book, there was mention of his age and the petitioner had signed in service book. The Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the writ petitioner was appointed vide Annexure-1, along with others, on the post of village Chaukidar on 3.4.1989. It was pointed out that in Annexure-1, the age of the petitioner had been indicated as 35 years. The service book of the petitioner was opened on 15.11.1990 and his date of birth was shown as 1940 on the basis of an opinion of the Medical Board which found him aged about 50 years as per Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit, dated 16.5.1990. On 17.9.1992, the petitioner filed an application for correcting his date of birth as 6.1.1953 on the basis of School Leaving Certificate. He also produced his mark-sheets showing that he had appeared in the Annual Secondary School Examination of 1973 and he obtained 282 marks and thereafter copy of the tabulation register of the Bihar School Examination 2 Board for the said examination has also been made available by the petitioner which shows that for the purpose of said examination of 1973 his date was mentioned as 6.1.1953. Vide letter dated 10.10.2005 (Annexure-5 to the Memo. of appeal), the Deputy Collector Incharge of General Section of Collectorate, Bhojpur at Arrah informed the Sub-divisional Officer, Piro that the application of the petitioner, a Chaukidar, resident of village Vishunpura, P.S.-Tarari, Ara was not accepted and his age given by the Medical Officer at the time of appointment shall be treated to be final. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner, as noted above, has been dismissed by the order of under appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the documents of the Bihar School Examination Board furnished by the petitioner/appellant before the Authority has not been found doubtful or unreliable and yet the authorities have chosen not to accept the prayer of the petitioner without any good or cogent reasons. He has highlighted the fact that the entries in the tabulation register of the Bihar School Examination Board were made before the entry of the appellant in service and therefore, the age of the petitioner given out in the tabulation register should have been accepted by the authorities. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed an application for correction of his age within the time prescribed by the Bihar Finance Rules i.e. within 10 years. Having considered the relevant facts and the submission of the parties, we are of the view that the opinion of the Medical Officer in respect of age of appellant in the service book cannot be given preference over the age mentioned in School Leaving Certificate as well as in the tabulation register of Bihar School Examination Board. Documents of matriculation 3 examination and records of the Bihar School Examination Board have superior evidentiary value and there was no good reason in the case of the appellant, not to accept his application and prayer for correcting his age in the service book. The argument advanced on behalf of the State is that the petitioner had signed the service book with open eyes and therefore, admitted his age to be about 50 years and hence it required no correction. This submission is found unacceptable because petitioner who could not pass matriculation examination cannot be expected to understand the principles of evidence. Earlier, Chaukidars held the post for life. He came to hold the post of Chaukidar, lowest in hierarchy under the organization of Rural Police. He cannot be panelized for not disclosing the documentary evidence at the time of initial entry into service. In that view of the facts, appeal deserves to be allowed. It is admitted that the appellant was made to retire from service on 30.6.1998 by treating his date of birth as 1940. Long years have passed and the petitioner has neither worked in the office nor there is any interim order to keep the post vacant or to make the subsequent appointment subject to the result of the proceeding. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact appellant was directed to work as Chaukidar till April 2004 but instead of salary as per information, he was given only some allowances. In the facts noticed above, we are of the view that relief to be granted to the appellant has to be modified in the light of aforesaid facts. The next incumbent should not suffer removal from the service on account of order passed in this appeal. Hence, we are not directing for reinstating the 4 petitioner in service but he is entitled to be compassionated monetarily for the loss suffered by him. If the authorities find that he had actually worked till April 2004, he should be paid balance salary after deducting allowances paid for the period till April, 2004. In case the authorities do not find any material to show that he had worked after 30.6.1998 or had received any wages, then the appellant would be paid 50% of his salary with allowance for the whole period, from 30.6.1998 till superannuation as per law, treating his date of birth to be 6.1.1953. In case it is found possible to post appellant on any other vacant post of Chaukidar within the police station, he may be permitted to join such post, so that he may earn full salary for the period, he actually works after this order. His retrial and pensionary benefit shall be calculated and paid by treating him in service till the age of superannuation on the basis of his claimed date of birth, i.e., 6.1.1953. The writ petition and the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The required decision in respect of appointing the appellant on any vacant post as well as for payment of monitory dues should be taken expeditiously, preferably within 3 months from the receipt/production of the copy of this order. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)