Dismissed

Mukh Ram Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC23 Mar 2015CWJC/4249/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil writ petition regarding pension benefits, the High Court at Patna dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an impugned order by the District Magistrate. The Court held that the District Magistrate's finding regarding the petitioner's date of birth was well-considered. The Court declined to interfere, stating that the findings did not reveal any infirmity, even if they suggested the pe

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed; no interference with the impugned order.

Mukh Ram Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4249 of 2015

¶3

=========================================================== Mukh Ram Singh son of Shree Ram Bilash Singh, Resident of Village Dhidhi, P.S. Baroon, District- Aurangabad [Bihar]

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad [Bihar]. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad [Bihar]. 4. The Sub- Divisional officer, Aurangabad [Bihar]. 5. Anchal Adhikari, Barun, Aurangabad [Bihar] 6. The Officer In-charge, Police Station, Barun, Aurangabad [Bihar].

¶6

.... .... Respondent/s

¶7

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kr Singh No. 6 For the Respondent/s : Mr. GP20- NADEEM SERAJ

¶8

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-03-2015

¶9

A K Tripathi, J. A very well considered decision has been rendered by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, after considering all the facts and circumstances dealing with the date of birth of the petitioner. The date of birth of the petitioner, which the petitioner tried to establish subsequently by appearing in examination, was based on the declaration so made but a reading of the impugned order would indicate that lf his assertion is accepted to be true with regard to various dates of birth recorded previously in the official records vis-à-vis his assertion, then he would be only 13 years of age in the year 1972 when he came to be enrolled or assigned responsibility of a Chaukidar. Obviously, such a decision would not have been taken by the respondent authorities, if he was a minor at the time of his engagement in the year 1972.

¶10

This Court is not oblivious of the fact that in the year 1990

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.4249 of 2015 dt.23-03-2015

¶12

2 / 2

¶13

Chaukidar became holder of a post under the State and thereafter all these jugglery with the age and date of birth started to hang on to the benefit available to a government servant as long as they could as also to derive maximum benefit of pension as well.

¶14

This Court cannot be a party to such mechanism on the face of such gross finding of facts. Such findings, in the opinion of the Court, do not require any interference since there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶15

Writ application is dismissed.

¶16

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

¶17

R.K.Pathak/-

¶18

Mukh Ram Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukh Ram Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satayndra Narayan Choudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Hemlata Devi @ Hemlata Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Alok Kumar Yadav Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Maimun Nesa and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ekramul Hasan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shri Arjun Pandit Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.