GANESHI MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Shri P. K. Verma, learned A.A.G. for the State of Bihar.

(2.) The dispute was about the age of superannuation of the employee. He was made to retire treating his age to be 65 years as on 31 st of March, 2005. This was challenged by the employee in C.W.J.C. No.939 of 2006 giving rise to this appeal and during the pendency of the writ petition, he died. He has been substituted by his heirs who continued the writ petition and have filed this appeal.

(3.) The employee was appointed as a Chowkidar and he was made to retire on account of a complaint made by a private person, that in a proceeding under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C., the employee had disclosed his age, which clearly indicated that he had attained the age of 65 years as on 31 st March, 2005. It is on this ground that a Medical Board was set up to determine the age of the employee. The Medical Board, however, corroborated the date of birth as recorded in the service record, i.e. 4th of July, 1947.