- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner one Nafisha Khatoon, claiming to be wife of late Shakoor Mian, challenging the notice dated 8th November 1993 (Annexure -2) issued by the respondent no. 3 -the General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Lodna Area, Dhanbad alleging that her husband was wrongly superannuated from service by arbitrarily correcting his date of birth. According to the petitioner, the date of birth of her husband recorded in the service excerpts (Annexure -1) is 11th July 1935, as per which, he ought to have retired in January 1995, but because of the impugned notice, he has been made to retire on 01st January 1994. Incidentally, it was pointed out through counter affidavit that the name of the petitioner does not reflect in the service record as wife of the employee -Shakoor Mian. Whereafter, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that though, she had put her thumb impression on the vakalatnama which was identified as Anisha Khatoon, but inadvertently, because of some typographical error, instead of Anisha Khatoon, her name was typed as Nafisha Khatoon in the main body of the writ application. According to the petitioner, her husband died on 17th January 1996 and death certificate to that effect was issued vide annexure -4. Thereafter, she has preferred this writ application challenging the same in the year 1998. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of superannuation was passed without any notice to the petitioner's husband and moreover, it has been done at the fag end of his service which is impermissible in law. He had joined the service on 01st April 1952 and remained for almost four decades. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order by relying upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 3344/1993 (R) and analogous cases (Ganesh Gope V. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & others) which is annexed as annexure -3. He has also relied upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Sunder Pandit V. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi through its Chairman & others reported in 2006 (1) JLJR 326. He has also relied upon a judgment in the case of Sri Narayan Das V. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi & others reported in 2005 (2) JLJR 488. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V. Harnam Singh reported in 1993 (2) SCC 162. Counsel for the petitioner submits further that the respondents are not justified in opposing the relief on the ground that the writ petition is barred by delay and for that, he relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case K.I. Shephard and others V. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1988 SC 686.
(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the respondents has opposed the relief prayed for on behalf of the petitioner, mainly on the ground that the employee concern had retired by virtue of the impugned notice on 01st January 1994 and remained alive till 17th January 1996. However, he did not find any reason to impugn the aforesaid retirement notice which was served upon him after due show -cause, as would appear from the impugned notice itself. The writ petition has been filed in the year 1998 almost after more than five years which suffers from gross delay and latches on that account and also on the question of identity of the petitioner herself and in view of the doubt being created, the writ petition should not be entertained.;