CHAKRADHAR KUMHAR Vs. BCCL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 9.8.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6806 of 20111, in and by which learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant, declining to interfere with the order of superannuation of the appellant on 31.12.2011. The appellant was appointed in the service of the respondents on 7.11.1991 as Piece Rated Worker Group-I, vide letter dated 7.11.1991. According to the appellant, his date of birth was duly entered as 16.12.1961 in all records. In the month of October, 2010, a seniority list was published in the Notice Board, wherein appellant's date of birth was stated as 16.12.1951. The appellant, vide letter dated 9.10.2010, objected to the same and requested for correction of the same to 16.12.1961. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondents wrongly considered the date of birth of the appellant as 16.12.1951 and compelled him to retire on 31.12.2011, as per the letter of superannuation issued on 6.7.2011. The appellant also filed his objection dated 6.8.2011 but nothing has been done. Challenging the order of compulsory superannuation, the appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 6806 of 2011 and the same was dismissed on 9.8.2012, holding that at the time when the appellant was appointed as Piece Rated Worker, his age was stated as 40 years and consequently his date of retirement is only on 31.12.2011.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the health card, salary slip, service excerpts and other documents which substantially establish the date of birth of the appellant as 16th December, 1961. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge has also failed to take into consideration the School Leaving Certificate, wherein, the date of birth of the appellant is mentioned as 16th December, 1961 and for the reasons best known to the Management they have altered the date of birth as 16th December, 1951, causing serious prejudice to the appellant and the learned Single Judge did not keep in view the documents relied upon by the appellant.