N PONNAYAN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein joined the service of the first respondent as Casual Labour on 09.12.1965. THE petitioner was absorbed as permanent employee as a Gardener in the month of March, 1972. THE petitioner gave an undertaking in the year 1973 to the effect that he was 31 years old. THE provisions contained under the Standing Orders of the respondents, particularly Regulation 36 (2) states that if the workman concerned is unable to produce the evidence of his age and in a case where the Board has not accepted the declaration, it is open to the Board to have the workman examined by a Medical Officer.

(2.) THEREFORE, in accordance with the said provisions, a medical examination was ordered by the third respondent by the memo dated 27.10.1976. A certificate was issued by the Medical Officer of the respondents on 22.12.1976 stating that the petitioner was aged about 32 years as on that date. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2000. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was informed that inasmuch as he has given an undertaking earlier in the year 1973, he is deemed to have retired on 30.06.2002.

(3.) THEREAFTER, in pursuant to the order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner gave several representations stating that he being an illiterate person and having a family to maintain, the retiral benefits will have to be given to him. The petitioner has approached the respondents by way of several representations and legal notice and agitated his claim for about three years. THEREAFTER, the order impugned has been passed on 02.03.2005 stating that, in view of the audit objection, the petitioner's age will have to be taken into account as given by him in his undertaking in the year 1973. Such an approach on part of the respondents cannot be countenanced. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have any proof about his age. The petitioner is an illiterate and poor person and that is the reason why he gave a declaration. The respondents did not accept the declaration and that is the reason why he was referred to the Medical Board. The report of the Medical Officer was accepted by the respondents. When that is the case, the procedures contemplated under the standing orders of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, particularly Regulation 36(2) having been complied with, it is not open to the respondents to change their stand and thereafter contend that the petitioner ought to have retired on 30.06.2000. It is pertinent to note that the said decision was taken only in pursuant to the audit objection. Therefore, the petitioner is nowhere responsible for the action of the respondents treating him as regular employee after 30.06.2000.