PARIKSHITA BALA Vs. ORISSA COUNCIL OF SPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was serving as a watchman in the establishment of Orissa Council of Sports. It is alleged that erroneously the Petitioner was made to retire on 30.1.1995 after completion of twenty six years of service. According to the Petitioner his date of birth being 11.6.1938, his year of retirement should have been 1998. Being aggrieved by the said action the Petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, praying to direct the Opp. Party authorities to pay arrear salaries of the Petitioner in the revised scale of pay from 1.7.1995 to 30.6.1998 together with leave salary, gratuity & other retirement benefits including monthly pension with interest @ 9 % per annum.

(2.) The scenario of facts reveal that the Petitioner was duly recruited & appointed as a watchman in the year 1969 in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 1, Orissa Council of Sports. He was discharging his duties to the best of his ability & there was no blemish in his service career. On 25.1.1995 Opp. Party No. 1 intimated the Petitioner that he is going to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.6.1995. The Petitioner received such information & filed a representation before the authority- stating that his date of birth being 11.6.1938, he will attend the age of sixty years on 30.6.1998. Thus, the notice issued intimating the Petitioner to retire from service w.e.f. 30.6.1995 is not correct. The authorities however did not take any steps to rectify their mistake. Consequently, the Petitioner approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 549(C)/1995.

(3.) While matter stood thus, it is alleged, after conducting preliminary enquiry the authorities were satisfied that the year of birth of the Petitioner was 1938 & not 1935. The Minister, who was the Vice Chairman of Orissa Council of Sports, assured the Petitioner that justice shall be done to him. On the basis of such assurance the Petitioner withdrew O.A. No. 549(C)/1995 which was pending before the Tribunal. It is alleged that though the Petitioner has approached the authorities on several occasions no action was taken, as such he has approached this Court.