STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. ARUN KUMAR DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 9.1.2012, this matter was referred to this Larger Bench, the questions of reference being as follows:-

(2.) The admitted facts of the case lie in a short compass. The writ petitioner-respondent was appointed as Moharrir on 21.09.1968, before completing the age of 18 years, as at the time of his entering into the service, he was aged only about 15 years and 2 months, his date of birth being 12.07.1953, which is also recorded in his service book. There is no dispute that at the time of entering into his service, there was no misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioner about his age, rather, it was within the knowledge of the appointing authority that at the time of his appointment, the writ petitioner was aged only about 15 years and 2 months, according to his date of birth. There is no dispute with the fact that the petitioner worked to the satisfaction of all concerned during his entire length of service and there had never been any dispute with regard to his date of birth.

(3.) A letter was issued by the appellant No. 5, Director, Land Records and Measurement, Jharkhand, Ranchi, on 31.03.2010, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the present memo of appeal, directing all the Settlement Officers and Assistant Settlement Officers to examine the cases of the employees, who had been appointed prior to attaining the age of 18 years and it was directed that as per the advice of Finance Department, they shall superannuate at the age of 60 years, treating their age to be 18 years on the date of entry in service. Pursuant thereto, office order contained in Memo No. 231-I dated 20.8.2010, as contained in Annexure-4 to the memo of appeal, was issued by the In-charge Settlement Officer, Dhanbad, informing the writ petitioner that since his date of birth was 12.07.1953, recorded in his service book, treating him to have been appointed at the age of 18 years on the date of his appointment, i.e., 21.09.1968, he shall superannuate with effect from 30.09.2010, treating him to have attained the age of 60 years on that date. This order was challenged by the writ petitioner, in W.P.(S) No. 1910 of 2010, which, upon adjudication, was allowed by the Honourable Single Judge, by order dated 08.03.2011, quashing the aforesaid office order contained in Memo No. 231-I dated 20.8.2010, and the respondents-appellants were directed to permit the writ petitioner to continue in service and he be paid the emoluments till he actually attained the age of superannuation, according to his actual and recorded date of birth.