- (1.) This application has been filed for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased, Baljit Singh. For the reasons mentioned therein, CM is allowed. Legal representatives (the detail as mentioned in Para No. 2 of the writ petition) are taken on record. It has further been mentioned that son of the deceased petitioner namely, Sukhwinder Singh has given power of attorney to his brother namely Jatinder Singh to pursue the present case, attached with the petition, which is taken on record. Amended memo of parties is also taken on record. CM No. 13781 of 2010 For the reasons mentioned therein, CM is allowed. Judgment of Sh. Jagdeep Sood, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana is taken on record. CWP No. 8955 of 2000 This order shall dispose of both the aforesaid cases with a common judgment as they have arisen out of the same questions of fact. Facts are taken from CWP No. 8955 of 2000 for adjudication. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 22/25.05.2000 whereby Baljit Singh was retired on 28.02.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. The excess amount of pay and allowances after 1st March, 1998 were to be recovered from the dues of the petitioner. The dispute in the present case is whether the petitioner's date of birth is 11.02.1940 as per date mentioned in the discharge slip issued by the Army on 11.02.1946. He continued to work as Inspector Grade II till May 20, 2000 with the respondent-Corporation under the assumption that retirement age was fixed as 60 years. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed ordering the recovery of pay for the period of two years, and accordingly, the said order was challenged on the ground of being violative of principle's of natural justice.
(2.) In the written statement filed by the respondents, the plea taken is that the petitioner has not exhausted his alternative remedy of appeal to the appellate Forum of the Corporation. The petitioner had joined as Shop Assistant Grade-I and his date of birth was 11.02.1946 and the entry regarding his date of birth in the discharge certificate was denied and it was stated that he had tampered with the official record and given wrong information in order to conceal his correct date of birth. The impugned order was accordingly, justified.
(3.) It transpires from the record that on the same set of allegations, the petitioner was also subjected to criminal trial and was convicted under Section 420, IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana and was ordered to undergo SI for a period of 01 year. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner has expired on 21.05.2013.;