BALINDRA NATH SARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved for determination in this Civil Rule is the date when the petitioner attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years.

(2.) The petitioner had been working as Zonal Manager, Northern Zone, Tezpur in the Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. respondent No. 2. He passed Matriculation examination in the year 1952 and joined Bank on 9.3.54. As per the Matriculation Certificate he was 18 years on 1.3.52. Therefore, according to the petitioner he reached the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 1.3.94. However, the petitionen received Annexure-C letter dated 3.12.93 from the 3rd respondent whereby be was informed that he would attain the age of superannuation on 28.2.94 as [per Rule 21 (a) of the Staff Rule of the Bank. On receipt of the said Annexure-C letter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent contending, inter alia, that his date of superannuation should be accepted as 13.94 as per the Matriculation certificate. The Manager (Administration) of the Bank in reply to the petitioner's appeal (vide Annexure-D), by Annexure-E letter dated 6.1.94 intimated the petitioner that the petitioner would attain the age of superannuation on 28.2.94 and not on 1.3.94. On receipt of the Annexure-E letter, the petitioner submitted Annexure-F representation dated 29.1.94 before the 3rd respondent. In the said representation also Ihe petitioner contended that his age of superannuation ought to be 1.3.94. In the representation there had been a typographical mistake regarding -the date of birth. The date of birth was wrongly shown as 2.3.94 instead of 2.3.34 which was later on corrected. Thereafter, the petitioner received Annexure-G letter. By the said letter the petitioner was informed by the 3rd respondent that after carefully going through the records it was found that the petitioner's date of superannuation would be 28.2.94 as intimated earlier. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted yet another representation intimating the 3rd respondent that as per the decision of the High Court his date of superannuation should fall on 1.3.94. However, this was not agreed to. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of appropriate Writ or direction for quashing and setting aside the Annexure-C and E tetters and for further direction to allow the petitioner to continue till 31.3.94.

(3.) Heard both sides.