Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 528 (PAT)

Madan Mishra v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2003-05-05

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment 1. In this writ application, prayer of the petitioner is to quash the entry in regard to date of birth made in the Service Book. Petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat his date of birth as 21.11.1948 instead of 31.5.1944 and retire him on that basis. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was initially appointed as unskilled khalasi and joined as such on 1st of July, 1970. According to the petitioner, his date of birth recorded in the Service Book is 21.11.1948. His grievance is that without any justifiable reason, he was referred to the Medical Board for determination of age on 31st of May, 1999 and on the basis of average age ascertained by the Medical Board, his date of birth has been determined as 31.5.1944. Further on that basis, he is sought to be returned. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 in which it has been stated that there being interpolation in the date of birth originally recorded, the matter was referred to the Committee appointed to look into such case. The Committee in its reports, observed as follows: "67. Sri Madan Mishra-skilled Khalasi-Elec. Supply Division, Purnea. The date of birth has been recorded in the service book as 22 years on 21.11.70. Date of appointment is 1.1.70. The date of opening of the service book is not mentioned. The date of birth originally recorded has been penned through and date of birth written later on in different ink. He should be sent to the Medical Board for determination of age." 4. As decided by the Committee, the petitioner was informed to appear before the Medical Board which determined his age between 54 to 56 years on 31.5.1999 and on that basis, petitioners date of birth 31.5.1944 has been mentioned in the service book. 5. Mr. Ajey Kumar appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in sending the petitioner for examination by the Medical Board for ascertainment of age is without any valid reason and on that count alone, the age determined by the Medical Board is not fit to be accepted. 6. Mr. 5. Mr. Ajey Kumar appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in sending the petitioner for examination by the Medical Board for ascertainment of age is without any valid reason and on that count alone, the age determined by the Medical Board is not fit to be accepted. 6. Mr. R. K. Dutta, however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there being interpolations in the service book of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Committee who opined for examination of the petitioner by the Medical Board for determination of age and as such, it cannot be said that the decision of the respondents in referring the matter to the Medical Board for examination, is without any just cause. 7. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I do not find any substance in the sumission of Shri Ajey Kumar. The respondent Board had found interpolation in the service book and the matter was examined by a Committee. The Committee found interpolation in the service book and thereafter, recommended for determination of age of the petitioner by the Medical Board. I do not find any error in the same. 8. Mr. Kumar then submits that as the Medical Board had determined the age of the petitioner between 54-56 years on 31.5.1999. the petitioner ought to have been given the benefit of minimum age. 9. It is trite that in case of determination of age by the Medical Board, the benefit of minimum age has to be given to the employee. Mr. Dutta does not seriously dispute this submission in view of the long line of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents ought to have given the benefit of minimum age to the petitioner and should have taken into consideration the minimum age of 54 years on 31.5.1999. In the present, case, they have taken into account the age as 55 years which can (sicnot ?) be allowed to stand. 11. In the result, this writ application is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the age of the petitioner as 54 years on 31.5.1999 and superannuate him from service on that basis. No costs.