Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1033 (PAT)

Sadhu Singh v. Bihar State Elec. Board

2003-09-19

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment 1. This application has been filed for calling and quashing the letter bearing no. 143 dated 30.8.2001 whereby the date of birth of the petitioner has been changed from 28.9.1950 to 12.6.1944. 2. According to the petitioner he was initially appointed on 15.8.1972 as unskilled khalasi in Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and posted at Biharsharif. According to him his date of birth was mentioned as 28.9.1950 in the service book. His grievance is that in terms of the impugned letter dated 30.8.2001 his date of birth has been changed to 11.6.1944. His assertion is that the same has been changed without seeking any representation or giving show cause notice to the petitioner. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 in which it has been stated that the service book of the petitioner was received in the office of the Board in which the column of the age was blank and accordingly the petitioner was sent to the Medical Board for determination of his age. The Medical Board determined his age between 56-58 years on 12.6.2001 and accordingly determined his age to be average of the same i.e. 57 years. The service book of the petitioner which does not contain any entry in regard to date of birth has been placed on record. On the basis of determination of the age by the Medical Board the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered as 12.6.1944. 4. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha appears on behalf of the petitioner whereas Mr. R. K. Datta appears on behalf of the respondents, I have perused the record. From the counter affidavit of the respondents it is evident that the age of the petitioner was determined between 56 to 58 years on 12.6.2001 but the date of birth in the service book has been mentioned taking the average thereof as suggested by the Medical Board. It is well settled that in case of determination of age by the Medical Board the benefit of minimum age has to be given to the employee. Mr. Datta, in view of the long line of decision of this Court and of the Supreme Court does not dispute this position. In view of the aforesaid the age of the petitioner has to be treated as 56 years on 12.6.2001. 5. Mr. Datta, in view of the long line of decision of this Court and of the Supreme Court does not dispute this position. In view of the aforesaid the age of the petitioner has to be treated as 56 years on 12.6.2001. 5. In the result the application is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to treate the age of the petitioner as 56 years on 12.6.2001 and superannuate him from service on that basis. No cost.