R.K. Merathia and D.G.R. Patnaik, JJ. - (1.) THIS intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant -Management against the order dated 19,4.2005 passed in the writ petition - W.P. (S.) No. 6136 of 2004 whereby the learned Single Judge quashed the superannuation notice dated 22.9.2004 issued to the respondent - writ petitioner -workman informing him that he will be treated to have retired on superannuation from service of the company with effect from 29.2.2000 under. Clause -12.8.0 of N.C.W.A. -VI and all terminal benefits will be calculated and paid to him treating the above retirement date.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the management submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to the records; that the date of birth was manipulated in the service records; that there is no verification by the competent authority, attached to the cutting and change in the date of birth in the service records; and that when such manipulation was detected, show cause notices were issued to the workman. He further pointed out that the year of birth initially written in the service record was '1939', which matches with the age declared by the workman as 29 years in the year 1969 i.e., 1940 as would appear from the medical slip; that the workman put his signature on the medical slip; and that as such declaration of age by the workman was accepted, there was no occasion for the management to send the workman to the medical board. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the workman supported the impugned order. He submitted that the workman was appointed on 2.1.1963. As per the cross list of Annual Secondary School Examination, 1962, his date of birth is "6.7.1946" and the same was recorded in the service records of the workman and was carried in other records also which could not be changed by the management at the fag end of service. The petitioner was to retire on 31.7.2006, but the said notice of superannuation was issued to him wrongly and that too without issuing any show cause notice to him.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, we are satisfied that the impugned order cannot be upheld for the following reasons. Firstly, in the counter affidavit filed by the management in the writ, petition, the following statements were made in the paragraph 13 and 14: 13. That it is stated that twice show cause notices were sent to the petitioner vide No. 11/73 -77 and 13/63 -66 dated 29.6.2004 and 7.7.2004 respectively, seeking explanation as regards cutting and overwriting on the service -sheet as well as considered the age mentioned in the medical report conducted in the year 1969 taking it to be true and correct, but the petitioner has never responded to the same. 14. That further, the petitioner was asked vide letter No. 2702 dated 9.9.2004 to produce his matriculation certificate being possess by him to which he also did not respond. But, in the rejoinder to the said counter affidavit, the workman did not deny the said statements. Thus, in our opinion, the finding of learned Single Judge that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the workman before issuing the impugned notice of superannuation, is contrary to the pleadings and therefore, the same cannot be upheld. Secondly, the original service records of the workman were perused by the learned Single Judge and by us also. It is clear therefrom that the entry of date of birth was penned through and then "6.7.1946" was written with different pen and ink. There is no verification of such cutting by a competent officer. Thus, the case of the management that there was manipulation in the date of birth, cannot be brushed aside totally. This aspect of the matter has also not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge.;