Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 59 (PAT)

Ramjanam Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2003-01-16

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been tiled for quashing the order dated 18.2.99 (Annexure-11) passed by the Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Board, communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 11.3.99 (Annexure-10) whereby petitioners year of birth has been determined as 1934 and consequently treated to have been retired from service with effect from 31.12.1994. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was a messenger in the Bihar State Electricity Board and by order dated 9.5.98 (Annexure-7) he was retired from service with effect from 31.12.94. He challenged the said order by filing a writ application before this Court, which was registered as CWJC No. 4229 of 1998. This Court by order dated 4.1.1999 allowed the writ application, set aside the said order but gave liberty to the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to pass order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is the stand of the petitioner that his date of birth is 20th of September, 1938 and has been recorded so in the service record and all other documents of the Board. After the said order of this Court petitioner was informed regarding his personal hearing on 16.2.99. It is the stand of the petitioner that on the said date he went to the office of the Secretary of the Board but was not heard and told that next date of hearing shall be intimated to him. According to him, no further date of hearing was given and by order dated 18.2.99 (Annexure-11) he was informed about the passing of the impugned order retiring the petitioner with effect from.,31.12.94. 3. Petitioner has also placed on record large number of documents (Annexures-1, 2, 3, 5 and 14) i.e. the provisional gradation list, the Service Folder, Service Book as also the certificate granted by the school where he was admitted in Class-VII to show that his date of birth is 20th September, 1938. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in which it has been stated that at the time of joining the service the petitioner declared his age to be 22 years on 10.12.56. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in which it has been stated that at the time of joining the service the petitioner declared his age to be 22 years on 10.12.56. Accordingly the plea of the respondents is that the claim made by the petitioner that his date of birth is 20th September, 1938 is not fit to be accepted. Answering respondents have further averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner in fact was heard by the Secretary who had passed the impugned order and the statement made to the contrary is incorrect. 5. Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entry made in the provisional gradation list, service folder, identity card as also the certificate granted by the school clearly. show that the date of birth of the petitioner is 20th September, 1938 and as such action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner on 31.12.94 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years is absolutely illegal. Mr. Datta however appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that when the petitioner was initially appointed, he declared his age to be 22 years on 10.12.56 and accordingly the respondent-Board had reckoned his year of birth as in 1934 and consequently retired him from service from 31.12.94 i.e. on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. 6. Having appreciated the rival submission I do not find any substance in the submission of Sri Singh. Petitioner disclosed his age as 22 years on 10.12.56 and on that basis procured appointment in the Board, In fact the declaration made by the petitioner regarding his age has been recorded by the authority which bears the signature of the petitioner and the same has been placed on record as Annexure-A. No rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner denying either his signature on the said document or existence of such document. As the petitioner has procured appointment on the basis of declaration of his age as 22 years at the time of appointment, I am of the opinion that respondents did not err in treating the same for reckoning his date of birth. 7. Mr. As the petitioner has procured appointment on the basis of declaration of his age as 22 years at the time of appointment, I am of the opinion that respondents did not err in treating the same for reckoning his date of birth. 7. Mr. Singh then contends that while setting aside the earlier order this Court gave opportunity to the respondent-Board to proceed in the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but the impugned order has been passed without giving any notice to him. It is relevant here to state that by order dated 11.3.99 (Annexure-10) petitioner has been informed about the passing of the impugned order, in which it is clearly stated that he was given personal hearing on 17.2.99. The Secretary of the Board, who has passed the order has also stated in the impugned order that hearing of the case was fixed on 16.2.99 at 11 hrs. but the petitioner was not heard for some unavoidable reason and was heard on 17.2.99 at 4 p.m. In, the face of what has been stated by the Secretary in the impugned order, it is difficult to accept the assertion of the petitioner that he was not given any hearing by him. I am also not persuaded to accept the aforesaid stand of the petitioner that he was not given any hearing on the ground that the petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order, had preferred representation on 21.4.99 (Annexure-12) and in that he has not even whispered that no hearing was given to. him. In that view of the matter, the plea taken by the petitioner that while passing the impugned order the Secretary has not given to him any opportunity of hearing is not fit to be accepted. 8. There is yet another impediment in the way of the petitioner. The order impugned was passed on 18.2.99 and communicated to the petitioner by memo dated 11.3.99. He has preferred this application on 15.11.2002 i.e. after more than three and a half years of the passing of the said order. Petitioner has tried to explain the delay in filing the writ application that after the receipt of the impugned order he represented the matter before the Chairman and as he is infirm since long and his previous Advocate could not return the said file, delay has occurred in filing the writ application. Petitioner has tried to explain the delay in filing the writ application that after the receipt of the impugned order he represented the matter before the Chairman and as he is infirm since long and his previous Advocate could not return the said file, delay has occurred in filing the writ application. The plea taken by the petitioner for approaching this Court at a belated stage is absolutely vague and no credence can be given to that. 9. In the result, I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.