Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1243 (JHR)

Sheoji Singh v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board

2002-12-11

VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD

body2002
Order In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of annexure-4 the order dated 30.3.2001 issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer Supply Circle, Deoghar informing the petitioner that his age has been fixed as 57 years on the basis of the assessment made by the medical board on 6.12.99. 2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed under the respondents and at the time of appointment his date of birth was recorded in the service book as 17th September, 1944. The petitioner is still in service under the respondents JSEB. According to age assessed by the Medical Board the petitioner would retire on 30th September, 2000. But according to the petitioner, on the basis of his age recorded in the service book he will be retired on 6.12.2002. Further case of the petitioner is that at the time of his appointment he produced a medical certificate obtained from the Medical Officer in which his age was shown as 19 years. 3. After serving for a long time in 1999 the petitioner was asked by the respondents to appear before a medical board. The petitioner appeared before the medical board and his age was assessed as 57 years. Accordingly on 6.12.99 his date of birth was found to be December, 1942. On this basis the petitioner had been informed that he would retire in 2000. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition has been disputed. Their stand is that the petitioner was medically examined on 6.12.99 and he was found to be of 57 years of age. They have also alleged that since the matter involved is a disputed fact, this Court can not decide the same in writ jurisdiction. It has also been averred by the respondents that the school leaving certificate of the petitioner which shows his date of birth as 17.9.44 was never produced before them at any earlier occasion particularly when he joined his service. They have alleged that such certificate was produced by the petitioner only before the medical board which is also contradicted by the certificate of the Doctor which was produced at tho time of appointment. It is also the case of the respondents that 17.9.1944 was mentioned in the service book without any basis and, therefore, the matter was referred 10 the medical board for assessment of the age of the petitioner. It is also the case of the respondents that 17.9.1944 was mentioned in the service book without any basis and, therefore, the matter was referred 10 the medical board for assessment of the age of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on a decision of Single Judge of this court passed in CWJC No. 4105/2000 dated 11.7.2001 submitted that exactly in a similar matter the decision of the medical board was quashed and the writ petitioner was directed to be superannuated after attaining the age of 60 years i.e. as per the date of birth recorded in the service book. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this argument of the petitioner and submitted that since the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the medical board, so he cannot challenge the finding of the medical board. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on a Supreme Court decision and submitted that if there is a finding of the medical regarding the assessment of age, the High Court is not competent to interfere with the finding of the medical board. 7. Annexure-2 is the service book of the petitioner which was opened in the year 1970. There is no interpolation in the date of birth which appears in the service book. Admittedly it was opened so many years before the controversy arose with regard to date of birth. Since there is no interpolation in the service book in the date of birth, there is no suspicion regarding the correctness of the said entry. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent has got no application in this case because even the said judgment says that if an employee has rendered a long service without any objection with regard to his date of birth then such a dispute can not be allowed to be raised by the employer. 8. Since the petitioner is a 4th Grade Employee working as Line Man under the respondents he could not have understood the consequences of appearing before the medical board. He being the 4th Grade Employee could not have disobeyed the orders of the authorities and, so he appeared before the medical board. Therefore, the submission of the respondents that since the petitioner has already submitted to the jurisdiction of the medical board he cannot challenge the decision of the medical board, can not be accepted. 9. He being the 4th Grade Employee could not have disobeyed the orders of the authorities and, so he appeared before the medical board. Therefore, the submission of the respondents that since the petitioner has already submitted to the jurisdiction of the medical board he cannot challenge the decision of the medical board, can not be accepted. 9. Exactly in a similar case when an employee was asked to appear before medical board and after the determination of age which adversely affected him, he came to this Court and the decision of the medical board was quashed and the said writ petitioner was directed to retire after attaining the age of 60 years. The facts of this case are exactly the same. 10. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. It is directed that the petitioner will superannuate only after attaining the age of 60 years taking his age recorded in the service book i.e. 17th September, 1944.