HARI NANDAN PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia sought for quashing of the order vide letter no.960 dated 31.12.2014 issued by respondent no.5, whereby petitioner has been retired from his service, pursuant to letter dated 13.11.2014 issued by respondent no.4, prematurely retiring the petitioner before attaining the age of 60 years, and has further prayed for direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue till attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 31.01.2018, as per the Matriculation Certificate and the date of birth entered in his service book, with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been delineated in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Night Guard in the year 1972. During his continuance on the said post he passed Matriculation Examination in the year 1980 and his date of birth as per the Matriculation Certificate is 12.01.1958 which was also entered in the service book. The petitioner retired prematurely on 31.12.2014 as Accounts Clerk, vide letter dated 31.12.2014 issued by the respondent no.5 whereby the petitioner has been asked to hand over the charge to one Sona Ram Mahto, Store Keeper as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is impugned in this writ application. Thereafter, letter dated 31.12.2014 was issued to the petitioner stating inter alia that after completion of 42 years, petitioner's services was sought to be curtailed on 31.12.2014 vide Annexure3 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned letters, the petitioner submitted his representation to respondent no.3 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application but the said representation appears to have fallen on the deaf ears and being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order dated 31.12.2014 issued by the respondents has subjected the petitioner to be deprived of rightful claim for continuing in services till completion of 60 years of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents smacks of arbitrary exercise of power because the decision of the respondents has unilaterally shortened the services for not attaining the age of 60 years. In order to buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court reported in 2003 (1) JCR 320 (Jhr.), 2007 (3) JLJR 726 (FB) and 2017 (2) JBCJ 656 (FB).