Pradeep Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Respondent, who is now dead and has been substituted by his heirs vide order dated 29.4.2010.
(2.) THE instant first appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.9.2004 and decree dated 1.10.2004 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Jaiswal, Sub Judge -VI, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 131 of 2003, whereby learned trial court was pleased to decree the suit by holding that the superannuation of the plaintiff -respondent is premature and the order of superannuation issued by the Project Officer, Patherdih Coal Washery cannot be treated to be proper and the same was set aside. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. that the plaintiff - Nitya Nand Singh was appointed as semi skilled operator in Patherdih Coal Washery on 11.1.1965 and at the time of joining the age of the respondent - plaintiff was assessed by the doctor, who examined him, as 24 years. Respondent - plaintiff also signed on the same. The said medical report has been proved as Ext.B and signature of the Defendant is marked as Ext.C in the court and hence his date of birth was assessed to be 7.1.1941, since he was examined on 7.1.1965. Accordingly, the impugned notice was issued stating therein that the plaintiff - deceased, Nitya Nand Singh is to retire on 31.1.2001 and accordingly, he was asked to make his papers ready for retiremental benefits. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that no document for proof of age was filed by the respondent - plaintiff at the time of joining of service and as such after serving for about 30 years at the time of retirement he cannot raise a dispute with regard to the age. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff - respondent is bad in law and fit to be set aside. The appellant has relied upon decisions reported in "1994 (supp) (1) 155", and " : 1997(5) SCC page 181".
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent - plaintiff 's heirs has submitted that Plaintiff - respondent has filed school leaving certificate giving the age to be 1.1.1943 and accordingly, the date of birth of plaintiff was recorded in the register of BCCL as 1.1.1943. The company issued identity card in the year 1972 in which his date of birth was shown as 1.1.1943. Subsequently, BCCL issued another Identity Card in 1992 in which also his age was shown as 1.1.1943. The aforesaid identity Card has been marked as Ext. 1 and 1/1 and even the appellant - defendant witnesses have accepted that the date of birth of the respondent - plaintiff has been recorded as 1.11.1943 in the retirement register and as such, learned trial court has rightly decreed the suit and declared the notice of superannuation , marked ext.2 is bad in law and not operative. The respondent has also relied upon the decision repotted in "2007(3), J.C.R. 681".;