Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ravi S.Dhavan and R.N.Prasad JJ.
Ram Janam Singh
Versus
Bihar State Electricity Board
Letters Patent Appeal No. 159 of 2003 ;
Decided On : MARCH 03, 2003
Age Declaration - Service - The petitioner-appellant's attempt to change his date of birth for pension purposes was deemed inequitable by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-appellant joined service in 1956, declared his age as 22 years, and continued to serve until 1998. The Bihar State Electricity Board deemed him to have retired in 1994, but he continued to work for 4 more years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner-appellant's attempt to change his date of birth for pension purposes was not equitable, as he had already worked beyond the date of his retirement and received salary after attaining the age of superannuation.
Issues: The issue revolved around the petitioner-appellant's desire to change his date of birth from 1994 to 1988 for pension purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner-appellant's case was not equitable, considering that he had already worked beyond the date of his retirement and received salary after attaining the age of superannuation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, concurring with the order of the learned judge.
1. Heard.
2. Merely because the petitioner-appellant may have filed several writ petitions at the High Court is no ground that he sould succeed with the last one.
3. When the petitioner-appellant entered into service in 1956, he declared his age as 22 years. The petitioner-appellant as on record continued to serve till 1998. The Bihar State Electricity Board gave a memo to him, to the effect, that he would be deemed to have retired from 31.12.1994, Even when the petitioner-appellant had joined the service in 1956 on the declaratorn of age given by him, he had discharged more than 38 years of service. By default having worked until 1998, 4 years beyond the date of his retirement, he worked for 42 years.
4. The petitioner-appellant has had the benefit of service on both ends. He worked and got salary even after attaining the age of superannuation. Now the petitioner-appellant desires that his date of birth be changed from 1994 to 1988 for the purposes of pension. The case of the petitioner-appellant is not equitable.
5. The court has no reason to differ with the order of the learned judge recorded on the petition.
6. Dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
