- (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent on the limitation petition (LA. No. 1037/04) and being satisfied with the cause shown therein, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. The aforesaid LA. for condonation of delay is disposed of.
(2.) THE respondent was appointed in the services of the appellant -Electricity Board, on 1.1.1966 and his date of birth Amitabh Choudhary Versus State Of Jharkhand was recorded in his service book as 7th November, 1946. For about 33 years, no objection as to his date of birth recorded was raised either by the Board or by the employee -respondent. After 33 years, the respondent was examined by the Medical Board, which assessed his age and found his date of birth to be 3.11.1943 which was about 3 years more than the age recorded in his service book and on the basis of the age assessed by the Medical Board, the respondent was superannuated. The learned Single Judge noticed that the date of birth as recorded in the service book was not opposed by the appellants for more than 33 years and there was difference of 2 -3 years in the assessment of age as was made by the Medical Board and the age receded in the service book. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the Board at such a belated stage should not have retired the employee on the basis of the age subsequently assessed by the Medical Board, the date of birth having receded in the service book long ago. Similar was the case of Parmannad Singh V/s. BSE Board and Ors., reported in (2001) 3 JCR 20, wherein also the order of retirement was set aside.
(3.) WE find no ground made out to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. There being no merit, the appeal is dismissed.;