GENERAL MANAGER NHPC Vs. PUSHPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal was admitted on the two substantial questions of law vide order dtd. 29/9/2016, which are reproduced as under:

(2.) Before proceeding to adjudicate upon the above-mentioned substantial questions of law, this Court deems it appropriate to have a brief resume of the facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of this appeal. Since the original plaintiff has expired and his legal representatives have been brought on record, the plaintiff shall be referred to as 'the respondent'.

(3.) The appellants objected to the suit filed by the respondent through the medium of written statement by pleading that the suit was hopelessly time barred and that the respondent had declared his date of birth as 23/1/1942 at the time of joining of the service and he had also submitted a declaration of home town, wherein he had mentioned his date of birth as 23/1/1942 and it was also pleaded that the claim of the respondent cannot be entertained at a belated stage, that too after retirement from the service. Plea of estoppel was also raised by the appellants to object the suit filed by the respondent. The appellants admitted in their written statement that the service book of the respondent was washed away in the month of September, 1992 and during reconstruction of the service book, the respondent had signed and had accepted his date of birth as 23/1/1942 [16th Magh 1999]. It was further averred that the respondent had applied for voluntary retirement, which was accepted by the appellants and benefits were rightly calculated by considering the date of birth of the respondent as 23/1/1942.