JUDGMENT :

With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

I.A. No. 3281 of 2021

2. Heard the parties.

3. This Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of appellants for expunging the name of sole respondent, who is said to have died, however, exact date of his death is not available with the appellants.

4. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements made in the Interlocutory Application, the legal representatives fully described in paragraph 6 of the Interlocutory Application is hereby ordered to be substituted in place of the sole respondent after expunging his name.

5. This order would be subject to any objection if raised in future by any aggrieved person.

6. I.A. No. 3281 of 2021 is allowed.

I.A. No. 1983 of 2020

7. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 314 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

9. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1983 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 314 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No. 99 of 2020

11. The instant intra-court appeal is preferred against the order/judgment dated 31.01.2019 (as modified vide order dated 20.02.2019) passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7690 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has held the respondent-writ petitioner entitled for the salary for the intervening period and accordingly directed the appellants-BCCL to release the salary within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the order.

12. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under:

The writ petitioner was appointed as Fitter in the respondent’s company-Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BCCL’) and accordingly joined on 01.04.1972.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that at the time of appointment though he had supplied all details including the educational qualification enclosing copy of Middle Board Certificate, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 10th June, 1953 but the BCCL-management without assigning any reason and without disclosing the writ petitioner had recorded his age as 22 years.

However, in due course in the year 1987, a document known as ‘Seva Abhilekh’ was issued on 09.06.1987, wherefrom he came to know that in the relevant column his date of birth has been mentioned as 01.01.1948 and in its adjacent column it was recorded 22 years as on 01.04.1972, the date on which he joined the services of the BCCL, which itself was contrary to each other because if the age of 22 years is taken to be on 01.04.1972, then his actual date of birth as per mathematical calculation comes to 01.04.1950. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner made objection on the aforesaid particulars as mentioned in the ‘Seva Abhilekh’, but it was not redressed and notice of retirement dated 10.08.2007 was issued mentioning therein that the writ petitioner is going to retire w.e.f. 31.12.2007.

Aggrieved with the notice of pre-mature retirement, the writ petitioner approached this Court by invoking power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5901 of 2007, taking the plea that the case of the petitioner is covered by the Full Bench Judgment passed in Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s BCCL [2007 (3) JCR 681], for the following reliefs :

(i) For quashing the notice of retirement dated 10.08.07 issued under the signature of respondent no.2, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been sought to be retired w.e.f. 31.12.07 afternoon, which is illegal & arbitrar