An appeal preferring to quash an order directing a respondent to continue service until 2017 by allowing him to be 60. The appeal was allowed for being dismissed.
Impugned order dated 22nd March 2013 set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 22224 of 2011 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22224 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 5658 of 2013 And Interlocutory Application No. 5659 of 2013 In Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2013
======================================================
.... .... Respondents-Appellants
Versus
.... .... Respondent-Performa Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, AAG 2
Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG 2
For the Respondents : Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
Patna High Court LPA No.981 of 2013 (4) dt.01-07-2014
2 / 3
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
4. 01-07-2014
I.A. No. 5658 of 2013
Delay of 62 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 981 of 2013
This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the respondent-State of Bihar against the order dated 22nd March 2013 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 22224 of 2011.
The respondent-writ petitioner, a clerk in the Government Polytechnic, Chapra, on reaching the age of superannuation retired from service in December 2011.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court in above C.W.J.C. No. 22224 of 2011.
According to the petitioner, his date of birth was 6th December 1957 as recorded in the matriculation certificate and that he had a right to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years in 2017.
The claim was initially rejected by the learned single Judge under order dated 19th December 2011. Since the rejection of the writ petition, under order dated 3rd October 2012 made in Civil Review No. 294 of 2011, the aforesaid order dated 19th December 2011 was recalled and the writ petition was revived. Since its revival, the writ petition has been allowed by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service treating his date of birth as that of 6th December 1957. Therefore, this Appeal.
Patna High Court LPA No.981 of 2013 (4) dt.01-07-2014
3 / 3
The petitioner joined the service in the Government Polytechnic, Chapra as a Sweeper in 1968. While in service, he improved qualification and passed matriculate examination in 1971. In view of his improved qualification, he was appointed as a Clerk in 1984 and retired as such. Copy of the matriculation certificate produced on the record clearly notes the date of birth as that of 6th December 1951.
In any view of the matter, the petitioner having joined the service in 1968, he should be presumed to have attained the age of 18 years in 1968. His claim that his year of birth is 1957 is ex facie unbelievable. The petitioner has failed to explain how did he secure public employment at the tender age of less than 11 years.
Evidently, the claim made by the petitioner is false. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 22nd March 2013 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 22224 of 2011 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 22224 of 2011 is dismissed.
Interlocutory Application stands dismissed.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
Sanjeet/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Bihar against the single Judge's order directing the petitioner to continue in service should be allowed.
Whether the petitioner's claim of a 1957 date of birth made at the tender age of joining service in 1968 is believable.
Whether the claim that the petitioner joined as a sweeper in 1968 and retired as a clerk in December 2011 when he would have been at least 49 years old supports the year 1957.
The State of Bihar
Arjun Prasad @ Arjun Ram
R.M. Doshit
Ashwani Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
