BECHAN THAKUR, SON OF LATE PITAMBAR THAKUR Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Samir Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Binod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents /Bihar State Electricity Board ( hereinafter referred to as the "Board").

(2.) The petitioner, has approached this court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash part of the order contained in Memo No. 1033 dated 29.5.2008 whereby though petitioner was allowed to join was debarred from getting salary for the period during which he was kept out of job.

(3.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioner was earlier superannuated with effect from 31.10.2005 as Lineman from the Board in the year 2005 itself but he approached this court by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 3953 of 2005 raising dispute in respect of entry of date of birth recorded in his service book. A plea was taken that the petitioner's date of birth was 19.12.1948 as per the mark sheet and admit card , which fact was recorded in the service book , however, in the service book itself his average age as approximately 22 years was recorded. The writ petition was heard by a Bench of this Court. This Court noticed that confusion was created by the petitioner himself. However this court directed for examining the petitioner by medical board and it was indicated that as settled law, benefit of lower age fixed by the medical board should be extended to the petitioner. The said order was passed on 15.5.2007 vide Annexure "2" to the writ petition. Earlier in view of age recorded in the service book i.e. 22 years the petitioner was made to superannuate with effect from 31.10.2005. However in compliance with the order of the writ court dated 15.5.2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 3953 of 2005 the petitioner was got examined by the medical board and the medical board assessed his age on the date of examination in between 59 years and 61 years. Since the report of medical board was received and lower age of the petitioner was indicated as 59 years in compliance with the order of the writ court the petitioner was allowed to join and finally he joined on 21.6.2008 vide Annexure "5" to the writ petition. Simultaneously, in compliance of the order of the writ court firstly an order contained in Memo No. 1033 dated 29.5.2008 was passed and it was decided to allow the petitioner to join. The decision which was taken for granting pension pursuant to his earlier retirement was also withdrawn. It was clarified that during the period in which petitioner remained out of service the petitioner on the principle of "no work no pay" shall not be entitled to get salary.