NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY LTD Vs. SARFARAS BAIG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in O.S.No. 138 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Bpdhan is the appellant. Respondent filed the aforesaid suit to declare his date of birth as 4th Khurdad 1341 Fasli equivalent to 4th April 1932 and consequently his date of superannuation as 3rd April 1992.

(2.) The case, in brief, of the respondent is that at the time of his entry into the service of appellant, since the appellant did not insist on production of proof of his date of birth, he did not produce proof relating to his date of birth. In 1980 when the officials of the appellant wanted him to be present before the Age Fixation Committee he presented himself before the Committee and requested it to call for the record relating to his date of birth from Biloli School where he studied. But the Committee without calling for the record and without any basis arbitrarily fixed his age as 53 years as on 26-6-1980. Thereafter, though he has been continuously making representations to the appellant to fix his age by calling for the records from Bioli School, appellant without taking any action in that regard served a notice dated 5/ 6-3-1987 on him that he would-be superannuated on 25-6-1987. So he gave a representation to the appellant on 18-3-1987 to fix the date of his superannuation on the basis that his date of birth is 4-4-1932 as per the school records. But ignoring the said representation, appellant served notice that he would be relieved from duty on 14-4-1997. Hence, the suit.

(3.) Appellant filed its written statement putting the respondent in proof of allegations in the plaint and contending that inasmuch as the respondent did not produce any authentic record relating to his date of birth he was directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer to fix his age by conducting ossification test. Respondent without producing any school record appeared before the Chief Medical Officer. The Chief Medical Officer after examining the respondent fixed his age as 53 years as on 26-6-1980, for which the respondent did not raise any objection. Hence, the suit is not maintainable.