LAWS(PAT)-2001-11-22

RAM LAKHAN LAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On November 08, 2001
Ram Lakhan Lal Yadav Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed as a Public interest Litigation, in effect, praying that a writ of quo warranto examine the status of respondent no. 5, Ashok Kumar, Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department at present Engineer -in -Chief, Road Construction Department, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna from continuing on his post, though is retired on 1 August 2001. At the out set the Court needs to mention an objection taken by respondent no. 5, Ashok Kumar that the person who has filed the petition is in fact not a social worker but a contractor who has filed a petition with an oblique motive with malafide intention. By now the Court has seen the issues as have been presented in the petition and the Court has before it the original record produced by the State of Bihar.

(2.) THE retirement of respondent no. 5 is in issue and is embroiled in a controversy. The date of birth as given by the respondent no. 5 subsequently and the change sought by him has resulted in a controversy. Thus, the controversy is of the making of respondent no. 5. At the time when he sought appointment with the Government of Bihar, the application was made in pursuance of an advertisement No. 85/64. As on the date when the applications were invited i.e. 1 August 1964 as from the general category candidates, the age was to be not less than 21 years. While applying for a job this respondent declared his age as 1 August 1943. Thus, as on 1 August 1964 he was exactly 21 years. He received an appointment as Assistant Engineer (Civil) with the Public Works Department, Bihar.

(3.) AS on 1 August 2001 this respondent ought to have retired. But as he has succeeded in having the date of birth changed an issue was created and it was to come on the surface sooner or later. As this respondent continued in service the present petition was filed. But examining the totality of the circumstances it is not relevant who the petitioner is. What is relevant is the record of the State of Bihar which is being rendered in a circumstance that some one is taking advantage by being in service beyond the age of retirement and perhaps receiving an unlawful material and monetary gain by receiving a salary which should not be paid and consequently pension benefits which cannot accrue.