UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Vs. S. LACHMAN
LAWS(CAL)-1976-7-28
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 09,1976

UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Appellant
VERSUS
S. Lachman Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.)Union of India representing the South Eastern Railway has preferred this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge, Third Court, Midnapore, allowing the appeal of the Plaintiff -Respondent and decreeing the suit brought by him. The learned Addl. District Judge has declared that the order of retirement of the Plaintiff -Respondent from February 16, 1970, was not binding upon him and that the Plaintiff's due date of retirement from service on attaining age of 58 years will be February 16, 1977. The Plaintiff's prayer for promotion has been rejected as, in fact, no promotion was given to him.
(2.)On May 16, 1935, the Plaintiff -Respondent was appointed as a peon under the Medical Department of the then Bengal Nagpur Railway at Kharagpur. In his service -sheet, February 1912 was mentioned as the date of his birth. The Plaintiff's case, however, is that he was taken in place of his father who had retired from service. He was running 17 when he entered into the service. He claimed that his date of birth was February 16, 1919. In 1947 he first came to know of the wrong recording of his date of birth. Then he had applied to the Divisional Medical Officer, Kharagpur, for correction of his date of birth. He had produced his horoscope in support of his claim. Under orders of the Chief Medical Officers of the Railway, the Divisional Medical Officers had set up an Age Committee which had accepted his date of birth as February 16, 1919, but the Railway did not make any correction of age. Again in 1950, a second Age Committee was formed. That Age Committee also accepted that his year of birth was 1919. Even then, no correction of his age was made. He had unsuccessfully made reports to the General Manager. In spite of these facts the Divisional Personnel Officer, Kharagpur, South Eastern Railway, by a memo had informed the Plaintiff that he would officially retire from service from February 16, 1970, on attaining the age of 58 years. Thereafter, the Plaintiff -Respondent brought the suit out of which this second appeal arises. He was granted a temporary injunction by virtue of which lie continued to serve the Railway Administration even after February 16, 1970. The Defendant -Appellant contested the Plaintiff's claim by filing a written statement. The Railway Administration contended that the date of birth of the Plaintiff as February 16, 1912, was correctly entered in his service -sheet. The General Manager did not accept the recommendation of the Age Committee which had opined that the year of the Plaintiff's birth was 1919. The Plaintiff did not produce either an extract from his Birth Register or a School Certificate showing the date of his birth. He had failed to prove that the entry in the service -sheet was incorrect. Therefore, he was bound to retire on February 16, 1970, on attaining the age of superannuation.
(3.)The learned Munsif, Third Court, Midnapore, dismissed the suit brought by the Plaintiff -Respondent. As already stated, the learned Addl. District Judge allowed the appeal of the Plaintiff and decreed the suit.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.