- (1.) THE respondent -writ petitioner was working under the appellant, Bharat Coking Coal Limited. By letter dated 7th September, 2001, he was informed that he would attain the age of 60 years, on 7.4.2002 and hence, would retire from service on 1st May, 2002. The working respondent disputed the date of birth and the age, on the basis of which he was asked to superannuate and challenged the letter dated 7th September, 2001 before writ Court. Learned Single Judge noticed the submissions made on behalf of the workman -respondent that the date of birth recorded in the Identity Card was struck down and changed from 11th August, 1947 to 7th April, 1942. Having noticed the aforesaid fact, learned single Judge directed the appellant to constitute a Medical Board of three Doctors to examine the workman -respondent and to assess his age. The appellant kept in abeyance the order of retirement.
(2.) WE have gone through the enclosures attached with the counter -affidavit filed in the writ application. The Photostat copy of the statutory Form B shows that the age of the workman - respondent was 34 yeas, as on 7th April, 1976. Such age of 34 years was also recorded in Form B, annexure -B to the counter - affidavit. On the basis of such age as was originally recorded in the Statutory Form B Register and Form B, it was informed that the workman -respondent would attain the age of 60 years in April, 2002. This Court has taken into consideration the recent decision dated 5.1.2004 of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2004, wherein the following observations were made : We are of the view that the Division Bench appears to have wrongly appreciated the nature of the controversy which was involved. The controversy was not as to what was the actual age of the respondent but whether the service record had been interpolated or not. This is an issue which ought to have been left to the Civil Court to decide. We accordingly set aside the directive of the Division Bench and reaffirm the finding of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is allowed. In the present case, we are not satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, who asked to constitute a Medical Board, though it was a disputed question of fact which should have been determined by the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. We accordingly set aside the order dated 7.5.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2590/2002 and affirmed the letter dated 7.9.2001 as was passed by the authorities of the appellant. The writ application is dismissed and the appeal is allowed.;