SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Cal) 603

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, SYAMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI
Mahamaya Mukherjee – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mohan Kr. Sanyal, Chameli Majumdar, Mrinal Kanti Sardar

JUDGMENT

1. THE petitioner herein has assailed the judgment and order dated 26th November, 2009 passed by the learned West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in case number O. A. 937 of 2009 whereby and where under the said learned Tribunal disposed of the application filed before it by the petitioner herein without granting any relief.

2. THE date of birth recorded in the appointment letter issued to the petitioner was not accepted as the actual date of birth of the petitioner by the respondent authorities and relying on the voter identity card, concerned respondent fixed the date of retirement of the petitioner. The learned Advocate representing the State respondents produced records before this Court where from it appears that no valid documents are available with the respondent authorities for changing the recorded date of birth of the petitioner.

3. THE learned Advocate of the petitioner produced copies of the voter identity cards issued by the Election Commission of India on two different occasions. In the voter identity card issued by the Election Commission of India on 18th July, 1995, age of the petitioner was shown 45 years as on 1.1.1995. THE other identity card issued by the





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top