LAWS(PAT)-2000-1-50

GHOLAM RASOOL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On January 13, 2000
Gholam Rasool Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this was petition the petitioner is aggrived by the order dated 3.5.1993 issued by the Director, Personnel, Bihar State Electrical Board (respondent no. 2) and the order dated 24.1.1996 issued by the Deputy Director, Personnel, Bihar State Electrical Board (respondent no. 4) contained in Annexure 1 and 2, whereby and whereunder the Board has accepted the original entry of date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in his Service Book and treated May, 1987 as the effective date of superannuation of the petitioner from the service of the Board. However, the Board has further ordered that the excess salary paid for the period 1.6.1987 to 31.1.92 shall not be recovered from the petitioner, but his post retiral dues shall be determined on the basis of the service rendered by him till 31.5.1987.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior line -man under the Electrical Supply Subdivision, Samastipur. Admittedly "11.5.1927" was entered as his date ot birth in the Service Book. However, at the fag end of his service the petitioner made a representation for change of his date of birth and on consideration of the same the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Samastipur Electrical Circle (respondent no. 6) passed order on 13.6.1987 contained in Annexure 3 determining the petitioner 'sdate of birth as 31.1.1932 instead of 11.5.1927. Pursuant to the said order the Electrical Executive Engineer, Samastipur (respondent no. 7) issued order dated 5.9.1991 contained in Annexure 4 retiring him from service of the Board on 31.1.1992 treating his date of birth as 31.1.1932 to be correct.

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner has filed the present writ application after lapse of more than four years of the first impugned order dated 3.5.1993 (Annexure 1) passed by the respondent -Board determining that the petitioner would be treated to have retired in May, 1987 and further rejecting his claim with respect to the pension as the said claim was introduced from a later date i.e. 6.11.1987.