LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-304

U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MUNNA

Decided On May 11, 2012
U.P. State Electricity Board and Another Appellant
V/S
MUNNA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge (Special Judge), Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 305 of 1996 arising out Original Suit No. 506 of 1994.

(2.) Original Suit No. 506 of 1994 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 27.04.1941 and not 03.11.1936, as also for an injunction restraining the defendant from retiring the plaintiff on the basis of the incorrect date of birth as recorded in the service book, and at the age of 58 years. Plaintiff's case was that he was appointed as a driver/mechanic in the erstwhile U.P. Electricity Supply Company, Allahabad, which was taken over by the U.P. State Electricity Board in the year 1964. At the time of taking over, an option was given to the employees to opt the terms and conditions of the U.P. State Electricity Board, but those who did not opt the service conditions of the Board, remained as Ex-Licensee Staff whose service conditions were governed by the Standing Orders of the erstwhile Company. It was claimed that as per the rules contained in the Standing Orders, the age of retirement was 60 years whereas the defendants were seeking to retire the plaintiff at the age of 58 years even though the plaintiff did not opt the change over and remained Ex-licensee staff. The plaintiff further claimed that the date of birth recorded in the service book was incorrect, which ought to be 27.04.1941. On the aforesaid averments, the suit was instituted on 28.04.1994.

(3.) The defendant, U.P. State Electricity Board, contested the suit thereby claiming that the date of birth was correctly recorded as 03.11.1936 and, as such, the plaintiff would retire on 30.11.1994. It was also claimed that the plaintiff was not Ex-licensee staff and, as such, not governed by the Standing Orders of the Company. In the additional pleas, it was claimed that the suit was barred by section 6 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.