(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Moharrir in the service of respondent on 21.9.1968. It is not in dispute that his actual date of birth is 12.07.1953. Not only this but also, his date of birth as recorded in the service book of the employer-appellant from very beginning is 12.07.1953. It is alleged by the employer that the petitioner was below the age of 18 years at the time of appointment and therefore, he can be superannuated on rendering 40 years of service because of simple reason that one can enter into the service only after attaining the age of 18 years and as per Rule-73 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001( earlier Bihar Service Code) he is to retire on completion of the actual 40 years of service and not on attaining the age of 58 years.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a Full Bench Judgment of Patna High Court delivered in the case of Ragjawa Narayan Mishra and another vs. C.E.O. and others, 2006 1 PLJR 410 where the issue was considered by taking in to law relating to contract and who is competent to contract by virtue of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 3 of Majority Act, 1875. Rule 57 of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, was also considered. The Division Bench opined that since minimum age for entry in the Government service being 18 years and maximum age prescribed for exit being 58 years, total length of period of Government service would not exceed 40 years. The Division Bench also observed that a person who takes undue advantage by any reason at the entry point in service cannot be allowed to urge that he be given higher benefit. In addition to above, according to learned counsel for the appellant, there is yet another Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (2) JLJR delivered in the case of Shri Rajaram Sharma vs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation and others, the same view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court which is binding of this Coordinate Bench.