JAGESHWAR GIRI Vs. CHAIRMAN, JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was in the service of the respondent -Electricity Board. Earlier the petitioner was directed to be retire in 1995 which was challenged by him by filing a writ application being CWJC No. 1312/95R. The writ application was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine the petitioner by a Medical Board and after assessment of his age a decision be taken for his superannuation. Consequently the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board and his age was determined as 55 years on 22.1.1998 as according to the age assessment his date of birth was declared as 3.6.1943.

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that as per report of the Medical Board he will superannuate with effect from 30.6.2003 after attaining the age of 60 years but in spite of that the respondents have sent a letter informing him that he will retire with effect from 26.9.2001. This communication is under challenge in this writ application. Petitioners further case is that he will superannuate only after attaining the age of 60 years in 2003 and not prior to that.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the petitioner joined the service of the Board in 1959 and thereby he completed 42 years of service in 2001. The contention of the learned counsel is that the retirement age of an employee of the Board is 60 years and, admittedly, the petitioner will attain the age of 60 years in 2003 and, therefore, he cannot be superannuated before attaining the age of 60 years. In this connection learned counsel put heavy reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Mokhtar Ahmad v. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and Ors., reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 183.