RAMAWATARJHA Vs. BIHAR STATE ELEC BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is not a matter which needs to be examined on merits on the issue as was brought by the present writ petition. When the petition was filed the petitioner Ramawatar Jha was in service. He was under notice that having discharged 42 years of service he would be treated as having superannuated. The petitioner made an issue by bringing a petition that the retirement age being 60. years he ought to continue until 60 years. During the pendency of this petition the petitioner crossed both, forty two years of service and sixty years age.

(2.) IF the Court were to examine this matter on merit it may lead to a ridiculous situation. For instance, at the time when the petitioner was being retired he was 59 years but had done 42 years of service. Impliedly he was 17 years of age when he got the job, and this may not have been possible. But the Court is not reflecting on this situation.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , as the petitioner had retired, his pensionary benefits had to be processed. State Electricity Board processed his pensionary benefits until the age of 60 years. The petitioner was paid 90% of the pensionary benefits. The petitioner was indicated that he would receive his pension but the emoluments paid to him until the age he worked i.e. to say 60 years would see a deduction as if he worked for 42 years.