YOGENDRA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders contained in Annexures 1, 2 and last part of Annexure 3, whereby and where under his claim for treating him 24 years of age on 10.6.1963 has been held to be illegal and so has been superannuated from retrospective date by treating his age as 30 years on 10.6.1963. Thus the dispute in this writ petition is as to whether on 10.6.1963 the age of the petitioner was 30 years or 24 years.

(2.) IT has been submitted by Mr. Subhro Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are vitiated on the admitted fact that the authority of the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short ''the Board '') determined the date of birth of the petitioner as 30 years on 10.6.1963 vide impugned order dated 2.4.1998 contained in Annexure 3 even before holding any enquiry in complete violation of the principle of natural justice and fair play. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the age of the petitioner was 24 years on 10.6.1963 which is also evident from the photostat copy of the attested Service Book of the petitioner which has been annexed as Annexure 4 and the list circulated by the Personnel Officer of the Board on 9.1.1995 as contained in Annexure 6 with respect to the date of retirement of various employees of the Board in between the year 1995 to 2000. In the said list (Annexure 6) the name of the petitioner is included at serial No. 31, from which it would appear that the petitioner's date of birth has been treated to be 10.6.1939 accepting his claim that he was 24 years of age on 10.6.1963 and consequently his date of retirement has been mentioned as 30.6.1999. It is thus submitted that the respondent -Board has committed grave error in changing the date of retirement of the petitioner at the fag end of his service.

(3.) MR . Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel for the respondent -Board has submitted that there is no substance in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in absence of any dispute with respect to actual entry made in the original Service Book, photostat copy of which is contained in Annexure 'A ' to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of Annexure 'A ' from the naked eyes shows that initially 30 years was recorded as the age of the petitioner on 10.6.1963, which was later penned through and altered to 24 years without any initial of the competent authority of the Board. It is thus submitted that in Item No. 72 of the impugned order (Annexure 3) the authority of the Board was justified in determining 30 years as his age on 10.6.1963 and there is no infirmity in the said order. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondent -Board. It is true that genuineness of the original Service Book (Annexure 'A ') has not been disputed by the petitioner. It is also true that on looking to the said Annexure A ' from the naked eyes one can say that initially the age of the petitioner recorded in the Service Book was 30 years on 10.6.1963, which has been penned through and altered to 24 years without any initial, much less, of the competent authority. But still the authority of the Board cannot be held to be legally justified in recording the aforesaid finding contained in Annexure 3, when by the same order the matter was referred to the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer for sending administrative report within a month. However, this will not improve the position, as in my opinion, it will really amount to performing empty formality of complying with the rules of natural justice. Thus, this court is of the view that the respondent -authority has rightly determined that the petitioner was 30 years of age on 10.6.1963.