B C C L Vs. GORAKHNATH HARIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant-M/s. Bharat Coking coal/limited (B. C. C. L. for short) and others against the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2003 passed by learned Single Judge in W. P. (S) No. 4063 of 2002, whereby and where under, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in favour of respondent, Gorakhnath Harijan with direction to the appellants to pay him the wages and other consequential benefits for the period from 1st March, 2001 to 2nd april, 2002.

(2.) THE relevant facts of this case is that the respondent, Gorakhnath harijan, who is in the services of M/s. B. C. C. L. , passed Junior High school Examination in the year 1960. In the certificate issued by the district Inspector of School, Education Department, Gazipur, government of U. P. , his date of birth was recorded as 20th January, 1946. In the year, 1966, when he was appointed in the services of m/s. B. C. C. L. , his date of birth was, accordingly, entered as 20th january, 1946 but all of a sudden, by a letter No. 20/21 Pits/sup/ 4022 dated 13th September, 2000, he was superannuated from service w. e. f. 1st March, 2001. The respondent, thereafter, challenged the order of superannuation as contained in letter dated 13th september, 2000 before this Court in W. P. (S) No. 4063 of 2003. In the meaning, the management of M/s. B. C. C. L. reconsidered the matter and on the basis of report of a Medical Board, reinstated the respondent by the order passed in the following terms ;

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, there was no fault of the respondent. He was made to retire without taking into consideration the date of birth as recorded in his certificate and/or the age as was assessed by the Medical Board. The appellants having accepted the mistake and the date of birth as was recorded in the service book having been corrected by the management on the basis of age assessed by the Medical Board and the respondent having been reinstated on that basis, it was not open to the appellants to deny the back wages of the intervening period nor such period can be treated as dies-non. I find no ground made out to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. There being no merit, this appeal is dismissed. N. N. Tiwari, J.