TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Badal Vishal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned Junior Counsel to the Additional Advocate General, Jharkhand.
(2.) THE writ petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained at Annexure 8, by reason whereof it was inter alia informed that the date of birth of Mogal Shah was 22.3.1942 and therefore, he would be superannuating with effect from 31.3.2000. The aforementioned order was passed on 12.12.2000. By reason of the impugned order it was further intimated that the date of birth; i.e. 22.3.1942 had been established on the basis of a memo dated 11.12.2000 issued by the respondent No. 2, i.e., the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Nagrik Anchal, Ranchi. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 10.1.1968 and in the Service Roll which was opened on 24.1.1969, his date of birth had been recorded as 22.3.1948 vide Annexure 1 to the Writ Application. Consequently, according to the petitioner, he should be allowed to continue in service and he would reach the age of superannuation only in 2006. However, all of a sudden, on 11.4.2000, a memo was issued by the Executive Engineer under Memo No. 278 in which an allegation was made that there was an over -writing in relation to the date of birth of the petitioner. It was further mentioned that if it was proved that he had been paid in excess, then necessary recovery would be made from his salary/gratuity etc. The petitioner further states that, subsequently, the Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer was asked by the Executive Engineer to get Mogal Shah examined by a Medical Board thereafter send a report to them. On the basis of the aforementioned letter as contained at Annexure 4, the Civil Surgeon appears to have constituted a Medical Board. Thereafter he sent a report on 21.8.2000 by Annexure 5 informing the Executive Engineer that the Medical Board had examined Mogal Sah on 3.8.2000 and had found him to be 54 years of age. Thus, in view of the assessment of the Medical Board which was held on 3.8.2000, assess - ing him to be 54 years on that day, it will, therefore, be apparent that by that calculation, the Petitioners date of birth should be 1946. After the aforementioned report had been received, the Superintending Engineer sent a letter again to the Civil Surgeon, wherein he stated that no identification mark had been mentioned in relation to the Petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid letter, the Civil Surgeon by his letter dated 1.11.2000 sent an identification mark of Mogal Sah also. Thereafter without taking into consideration the report of the Medical Board and without assigning any reasons as to why the respondents did not consider the report of the Medical Board to be proper, a letter dated 12.12.2000 was issued by the Executive Engineer it was informed that memo dated 11.12.2000 established that his date of birth was 22.3.1942, and therefore, the petitioner would be superannuating with effect from 31.3.2000.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed this order and has stated that the memo, dated 11.12.2000 was never served upon the petitioner and he does not even know what was the contents of the same.;