KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH Vs. BCCL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing that part of the office order contained in Reference No. 7096 dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure-1), whereby the respondents have allowed the petitioner to continue in service up to 31.1.2015 in spite of his actual date of superannuation on 31.10.2016. The brief facts of the case, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the date of birth of the petitioner is 8.10.1956, as has been recorded in the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board. The petitioner was appointed on 27.1.1973 as Attendance Clerk. Since the date of his appointment, he had performed his duty. Vide office order dated 30.11.2010, the respondents had corrected the date of birth of the petitioner as 8.10.1956, but with the condition that he will be allowed to continue in employment in total tenure of 42 years of service i.e. 31.1.2015. It has been submitted that as per the Certified Standing Order, an employee can superannuate after attaining the age of 60 years, as such the decision taken by the respondents in the order dated 30.11.2010 superannuating the petitioner from service on 31.1.2015, is contrary to the provision made in the Certified Standing Order. It has been further submitted that since the respondents have accepted the date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate i.e. 8.10.1956, hence he ought to have been permitted to continue in service up to 31.10.2016. Against the decision of the Management dated 30.11.2010, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Management is kind enough to accept the date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate i.e. 8.10.1956, but the Management has taken a decision on 30.11.2010 that the petitioner will continue in employment in total tenure of 42 years i.e. up to 27.1.2015 and accordingly he will superannuate from service of the Company w.e.f. 31.1.2015 as per the provision of NCWA. It has been further submitted that the Management is kind enough to accept the date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate i.e. 8.10.1956, but this has been done ignoring the fact that if the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate i.e. 8.10.1956 will be accepted then at the time of appointment, the petitioner was not attaining the age of 18 years and that is the reason at the time of appointment, the petitioner had not produced the Matriculation Certificate.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the office order was issued on 30.11.2010, but the petitioner had not chosen to approach the concerned authority and had filed this writ petition in the year 2013.