CENTRAL COALFIELDS Vs. SHALIGRAM SAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are aggrieved by the judgment of reversal.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff -respondent, in short, was as follows. That at the time of joining the service on 10.1.1960, he was aged about 24 years and therefore his date of birth was 29.7.1936, but a notice of superannuation dated 2.5.1985 was served on him informing him that on completion of 60 years of age, he was going to retire on 26.11.1985, though he was to retire in July, 1996. He objected to such notice. As nothing was done, he filed this suit on 20.11.1985. He relied on Ext -2, a report of medical examination to show that his age was assessed as 45 years on 29.7.1981. He prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) THE trial court inter alia held that the plaintiff could not prove his case -that his date of birth was 29.7.1936, either by documentary evidence or by oral evidence. It further found that even if it is accepted that in Ext -'A' initially "34 years of age" was mentioned at the time of his appointment in the year 1960, his date of superannuation would have been sometimes in the year 1986 and not 1996, as claimed by the plaintiff. Finally, it held that the notice of superannuation was rightly issued.