R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) APPELLANTS are aggrieved by the judgment of reversal.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff -respondent, in short, was as follows. That at the time of joining the service on 10.1.1960, he was aged about 24 years and therefore his date of birth was 29.7.1936, but a notice of superannuation dated 2.5.1985 was served on him informing him that on completion of 60 years of age, he was going to retire on 26.11.1985, though he was to retire in July, 1996. He objected to such notice. As nothing was done, he filed this suit on 20.11.1985. He relied on Ext -2, a report of medical examination to show that his age was assessed as 45 years on 29.7.1981. He prayed for the following reliefs: (a) That it be declared that the letter dated 2.5.1985 is illegal and be struck down. (b) That it be declared that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 29.7.1936 and not any other date shown by the defendants. (c) That the defendants be restrained from retiring the plaintiff from 26.11.1985. (d) That any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled to, be kindly passed. (e) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff. The case of the defendants inter alia was as follows. The suit was barred under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. The suit was bad for nonjoinder of the Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL). The suit was barred by limitation, and also under the Industrial Disputes Act. For about 25 years, plaintiff did not raise any dispute with regard to his age/date of birth recorded in the service records and only after service of notice of superannuation, he filed this suit at the fag end of service. In the service record, the endorsement with regard to date of birth was accepted by the plaintiff by putting his thumb impression specifically against the cutting in column -2 regarding the age/date of birth, apart from putting his ten fingers on the service records -Ext -A. Ext. -2 is a fabricated document as the same has been issued by the medical officer of A.K. Colliery, whereas plaintiff was working in Sounda Colliery. Moreover, such forms (Ext -2) are issued about the medical fitness of the employees and they are not the medical assessment of age. The notice of superannuation was rightly issued on the basis of service records of the plaintiff. The suit was liable to be dismissed with costs.
(3.) THE trial court inter alia held that the plaintiff could not prove his case -that his date of birth was 29.7.1936, either by documentary evidence or by oral evidence. It further found that even if it is accepted that in Ext -'A' initially "34 years of age" was mentioned at the time of his appointment in the year 1960, his date of superannuation would have been sometimes in the year 1986 and not 1996, as claimed by the plaintiff. Finally, it held that the notice of superannuation was rightly issued.;