IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3628 of 2002 SIPAHI SINGHSon of Late Shivbalak Singh, resident o phandara, P.O. Madhaul, Via- Bhkhra, District Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Superintendent, Mandal Kara, Hajipur,Vaishali 3. Superintendent Central Jail, Buxar 4. Superintendent, Sahid Khudiram Bose, Jail,Muzaffarpur. ....................................... Respondents. ----------- 4 27-11-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has claimed that according to age of the petitioner determined by the Medical Board read with School Leaving Certificate showing that he was born on 7-2-1945, he should have been superannuated on completing age of 58 years, on 28-2-2003 but he has wrongly been superannuated with effect from 30-6-2001 by the impugned order dated 18-5-2001 contained in annexure-1 On account of over-writing and doubt regarding the date of birth of the petitioner, his age was rightly determined by a Medical Board which found him aged between 53-55 years on 4-7-1998. This fact is mentioned in communication from the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur dated 29-5-2000 (Annexure-6). That letter further mentions that the age found by the Medical Board roughly correspondence with the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in his school leaving certificate which is 7-2-1945. Ordinarily, when the Medical Board gave a finding that petitioner would have been aged only 53 years on 4-7-1998, the benefit of such doubt whether petitioner was aged 53 or 55 years - 2 - Naresh should have been given to the petitioner and on that basis he should have been allowed to superannuate at the end of July, 2003. But since school certificate of the petitioner was available and has been accepted by the petitioner and his claim is based upon that, he should have been superannuated at the end of month of February, 2003 itself. There is no good reasons why by the impugned order petitioner has been made to superannuate with effect from 30-6-2001 by giving benefit of doubt to the employer and not to the employee, the weaker party. In the facts of the case the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to be in service till 28-2-2003 when he reached the age of superannuation on completing 58 years as per school certificate noticed in annexure-6 and which the petitioner has claimed through this writ petition. The dues of salary for the intervening period till 28-2-2003 must be calculated and paid along with permissible allowance within a period of three months. If the retrial benefits are to be revised on account of this order such revision should also be made within a period of six months and dues on that account should be paid without any delay. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)