MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE SULTANPUR LODHI Vs. BANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Municipal Committee, Sultanpur Lodhi and the Executive Officer of the said Committee against the judgment and decree of District Judge, Kapurthala, dated 5th January, 1985.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff was appointed as a Peon by the Municipal Committee, - vide resolution No. 133 dated 28th November, 1953 (Exhibit P.1). He joined the service as such on 1st December, 1953. In the service book, his date of birth was shown as 15th November, 1928. An objection was raised by the Local Fund Examiner in the year 1976 after seeing the entry regarding plaintiff's age on the ground that the record had been changed. Consequently, he asked the Municipal Committee to find out after inquiry, the correct age of the plaintiff. The Municipal Committee, - vide letter No. 29576 dated 22nd March, 1976 (Exhibit P.3) asked him to give proof of his, age. He submitted a medical certificate dated 11th July, 1979 wherein it was mentioned that he was 54/55 at that time. From the aforesaid certificate and certain other circumstances, the Municipal Committee came to the conclusion that the date of birth of the plaintiff had been correctly shown as 15th November, 1928 in his service book and consequently, it, - vide resolution No. 88 dated 21st February, 1980 (Exhibit P.10) accepted his date of birth as 15th November, 1928, the resolution was annulled by the Government under Section 236 of the Punjab Municipal Act, - vide order No. 7334 dated 18th July, 1980 (Exhibit P.12). After doing so it wrote to the Municipal Committee that as the plaintiff had reached the age of superannuation, therefore, he should be relieved forthwith. The Executive Officer in pursuance of the direction of the Government, relieved the plaintiff on 23rd July, 1980. He has challenged the order of the Executive Officer relieving him from service.

(3.) The suit was contested by the Municipal Committee and the Executive Officer, who, inter alia, pleaded that the order dated 23rd July, 1980 was a lawful order and the plaintiff was not entitled to be retained in service in view of that order.