SALAG RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.1.1996, by which claim of the appellant that as per Sub -rule (1) of Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Rules, 1951'), he should not have been retired on 31st August, 1983 and the respondents should have accorded him all consequential benefits has been rejected.

(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 1.8.1950 and his date of birth was 1.9.1929. He was given retirement on attaining the age of 55 years vide order dated 15.5.1984 with effect from 31.8.1984. Appellant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied, filed writ petition on various grounds which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.1.1996. Hence this appeal.

(3.) IN Siddeshwari Kumari Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1991 All. L.W. 561, the Allahabad High Court considered the same issue and held that the date on which an employee is born, has to be included and day of his anniversary is to be excluded for calculation while determining the exact date of superannuation. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Kistoor Singh v. State of Rajastnan and Ors., 1998 (3) RLW 1769.