RAMJANAM SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been tiled for quashing the order dated 18.2.99 (Annexure -11) passed by the Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Board, communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 11.3.99 (Annexure -10) whereby petitioner 'syear of birth has been determined as 1934 and consequently treated to have been retired from service with effect from 31.12.1994.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was a messenger in the Bihar State Electricity Board and by order dated 9.5.98 (Annexure -7) he was retired from service with effect from 31.12.94. He challenged the said order by filing a writ application before this Court, which was registered as CWJC No. 4229 of 1998. This Court by order dated 4.1.1999 allowed the writ application, set aside the said order but gave liberty to the respondent -Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to pass order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is the stand of the petitioner that his date of birth is 20th of September, 1938 and has been recorded so in the service record and all other documents of the Board. After the said order of this Court petitioner was informed regarding his personal hearing on 16.2.99. It is the stand of the petitioner that on the said date he went to the office of the Secretary of the Board but was not heard and told that next date of hearing shall be intimated to him. According to him, no further date of hearing was given and by order dated 18.2.99 (Annexure -11) he was informed about the passing of the impugned order retiring the petitioner with effect from.,31.12.94.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in which it has been stated that at the time of joining the service the petitioner declared his age to be 22 years on 10.12.56. Accordingly the plea of the respondents is that the claim made by the petitioner that his date of birth is 20th September, 1938 is not fit to be accepted. Answering respondents have further averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner in fact was heard by the Secretary who had passed the impugned order and the statement made to the contrary is incorrect.