- (1.) This appeal was against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 6th August, 2001, whereby and whereunder His Lordship has been pleased to hold that the service rendered on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court by the Respondent should be reckoned as being regular service hence all benefits should be given on retirement.
(2.) The short fact leading to the disputes between the parties is as follows:
(3.) On 4th September, 1956 the Respondent/writ Petitioner joined the Appellant-Corporation in the post of Cleaner. At the time of his appointment he declared 2nd April, 1931 being his date of birth, accordingly the same was recorded in his Service Book. After joining his service in or about 1965 he appeared in the School Final Examination on 15th March, 1965 as a Private Candidate. In the Admit Card of the said Examination his date of birth was recorded as 6th April, 1939. He took his Examination through a School namely Matiary Banpur High School, Nadia. He was informed to be retiring from service on attaining his 58 years of age on 30th April, 1993 by a communication dated 15th July, 1992. On or about 23rd December, 1992 the Petitioner filed a writ application in this Court, challenging the said notice of superannuation. His contention was that his date of birth should be 6th April, 1939 as recorded in the School Final Examination held in 1965 as stated hereinabove in lieu of 15th March, 1965 as erroneously recorded in the service records earlier. In the background of the aforesaid the learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 23rd December, 1992 directed the Chairman of the Appellant to resolve the said contention by passing a reasoned order. The Chairman was directed by the said order to take into consideration the authentic document such as Admit Card. In pursuance of the said order dated 23rd December, 1992 the Chairman passed a speaking order on 12 January, 1993 holding that his date of Birth as being 6th April 1939 could not be accepted, as this claim is unfounded and afterthought. The said order of the Chairman was challenged by filing a subsequent writ petition being 7174(W) of 1993 on 29th April, 1993 and the same was disposed of by an order on the same date by the learned Single Judge of this Court to consider the Petitioner's case in the light of the judgment being Annexure "G" to the said writ petition. While passing the said order His Lordship directed the Respondent authorities to maintain status quo with regard to the service of the Petitioner. The said matter was considered by the Chairman once again and after having examined the documents and materials by an order dated 29th May, 1993 rejected the said claim. It was observed by the Chairman in the subsequent speaking order that the Admit Card issued by the School concerned was not a genuine document as on enquiry being conducted the said School authority informed that No. student by the name of the writ Petitioner/Respondent did appear as claimed. It was also observed if date of birth as claimed by the writ Petitioner /Respondent is accepted then it shall be presumed that the writ Petitioner/Appellant was a minor at the time of entry in the service. It appears that in spite of disposal of the said matter the Appellant allowed the Respondent/writ Petitioner to continue in the service. It appears that on 13th December, 1996 another writ petition was filed for obtaining relief and promotion. The learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the third writ petition directed the Managing Director to consider the Petitioner's case. Pursuant to the said order dated 13th December, 1996 the Managing Director by an order dated 9th January, 1997 held that the Writ Petitioner/Respondent was not entitled to promotion as he had already superannuated. The said speaking order dated 9th January, 1997 was never challenged. The Chairman of the Appellant by an order dated 13th January, 1997 discontinued his service with effect from 17th January, 1997 treating the excess period of service from 1st May 1993 to 13th January, 1997 as being re-employed. This period could not be counted with the total length of service. No. financial benefit should be given for the excess period except the wages he had already received.;