9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3853 of 2001 BHAGELU SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ------- 5 18-08-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for Bihar State Electricity Board. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13-7-2000 contained in annexure-1 whereby the Electrical Executive Engineer, Bhabhua has declared petitioner’s date of birth to be 17-5-1925 on the basis of opinion of the Medical Board communicated to him by a letter dated 6-7-2000 and on that account petitioner was made to retire with effect from 17-5- 1985, the date on which he completed 60 years of age. There is no dispute that 60 is the age for superannuation of employees of the Bihar State Electricity Board . It is also not in dispute that in the facts of the case the Board was entitled to get the age of the petitioner determined by a medical board and the same was determined as per opinion of the medical board contained in annexure-4 dated 17-5-2000 which shows that in the opinion of the medical board petitioner was on 17-5-2000 aged about 75 years which could vary by a margin of five years upwards or downwards. It is also clear that Board has ignored the permissible variation in the age of the petitioner as given by the medical board and has treated his age as 75 years on 17-5-2000 and accordingly declared that petitioner superannuated on 17-5-1985 . The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board Vrs. Bihar Powers Workers Union and others reported in 2000(3) PLJR 65. On the basis of said judgment it was submitted that in the matter of determination of age of a work- man the benefit of uncertainty has to go to the employee and therefore, the petitioner should have been given the benefit of lesser age as per opinion of the medical board. The aforesaid judgment clearly supports the case of the petitioner. According to that judgment Board should have treated the age of the petitioner to be only 70 years on 17-5-2000 and therefore he should have been made to retire or treated to have superannuated with effect from 17- 5-1990 and not from 17-5-1985. Accordingly, the order contained in annexure-1 is quashed to the aforesaid extent so that the date of birth of the petitioner shall be treated as 17-5-1930 and the date of retirement shall be treated as 17-5-1990. If petitioner is found entitled to any remuneration which may have remained due and payable on account of the aforesaid error in annexure-1 then such dues of remuneration should be paid to him without any delay and preferably within a period of three months. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Naresh (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)