VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE substantial question of law framed for answer in this case are as follows: - - "I. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent was maintainable? "II. Whether the lower appellate Court could have ignored the date of birth recorded in the service book of the plaintiff at the time of his entry into service specially in view of the provisions of the certified standing orders applicable to the appellants ' undertaking?
(2.) AT the time of hearing, it is fairly admitted by both the parties that the framed substantial question of law No. 1 is not required to be answered because it was never an issue before either of the Court i.e. trial and appellate Courts. The facts out of which the question has arisen are shortly that the plaintiff, who had applied for the post of Beldar and who, at the time of his application, had studied upto Class VI, had declared his age to be 24 years, but no document in support thereof was produced by him. Thereafter, he was appointed on 26.2.1957 after the report of the Departmental Doctor, who declared his age to be 25 years. Thereafter, the service sheet was prepared on the basis of the medical certificate and his date of birth recorded therein was 4.3.1932, as per the age estimated by the doctor. Thereafter it appears that the plaintiff passed his Matriculation Examination in the year 1969 as a private candidate and the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate was 1.3.1936. The plaintiff in the year 1985 made a representation for alteration of his date of birth as per the Matriculation Certificate. The appellant, corporation, referring to the standing order No. 7 -A, 7 -B and 7 -C, disallowed the prayer of the plaintiff made in the representations from time to time and ultimately the plaintiff filed a Title Suit No. 29/1990 in the Court of Munsif, 1st, Dhanbad, challenging his date of birth as recorded in the service book and consequently also challenging his date of superannuation. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that his date of birth as 4.3.1932, then Title Appeal No. 64/1992 was filed and the learned appellate Court held that the employee had been prematurely retired on 31.3.1990 instead of 31.1.1991.
(3.) THE defendants ' case was that the employee had not submitted any document at the time of his initial appointment; so whatever came from the Doctor was supposed to be the real age of the plaintiff and on the basis of the age declared by the Doctor, the date of birth of the plaintiff was 4.3.1932 and the plaintiff was also informed accordingly and considering his date of birth aforesaid, the plaintiff superannuated on 1.1.1986 and the plaintiff was informed of it much prior to his superannuation.;