SUDARSHAN MAHTON Vs. DINAPUR NIZAMAT MUNCIPALTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for quashing the resolution dated 2.12.1974, passed by the, Municipal Commissioner of Dinapur Nizamat, Municipality (hereinafter to be called the Municipality). By this resolution the commissioners held that the age of the petitioner was 58 years and consequently his service should be terminated. It was not the basis that the petitioner has reached, the age of superannuation.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as cattle feeder of the Municipality on 31.3.1943 with effect from 1.4.1943. In the year 1953 the service book of the petitioner was started where it was mentioned that his age was 30 years. The Executive Officer of the Municipality by his letter dated 24.1.1973, required the petitioner to produce proof of his age. The petitioner produced an authenticated copy of his school transfer certificate in proof of his age. A sub-committee of some of the Municipal Commissioners was thereafter constituted to look into the matter and submit its report. The report of the sub-committee was to the effect that the petitioners age was 30 years in the year 1953. The natural result of the acceptance of the report would be that the petitioner could not retire in the year 1974 when he was made to retire. It is stated in the petition that the Executive Officer without any information and knowledge of the petitioner got a report prepared from the Medical Officer of Health of the Municipality according to which the petitioner's age was fixed at more, than 58 that the petitioner's health was not such as to permit his continuance in service. Ultimately the matter came up before the Municipal Commissioners who passed the resolution as aforesaid. The petition states that on 30.11.1974, the petitioner had presented himself before the Deputy Superintendent of the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Dinapur, and got himself examined. The Deputy Superintendent, aforesaid, after examination found him mentally and physically fit and estimated his age as 52 years.

(3.) A show cause has been filed on behalf of the Municipality in which it is stated that the petitioner entered in service of the Municipality in the year 1946 and not in 1943 as claimed by the petitioner. The show cause supports the action taken by the Municipality stating that the Health Officer of the Municipality having found the petitioner 58 years of age and unfit to work the Municipality was entitled to take action it has taken in the instant case.