Jharkhand High Court
Mantu vs Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors. on 12 February, 2001
Author: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. This application was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21st January, 2000, whereby and whereunder, he was given notice of superannuation with effect from 10th July, 2003, as the petitioner will complete 42 years of service in the Company.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper on daily wage on 10th July, 1961 in the Giddi Colliery under Central Coal Fields Ltd. (CCL), earlier known as NCDC.
3. Subsequently, he was appointed as Truck Clearner Category-II in the regular scale on 12th July, 1976.
4. According to the petitioner, the copy of the service record was supplied to him in the year 1988, wherein the date of birth mentioned, as 3rd July, 1950.
5. According to the age of superannuation, the petitioner is to superannuate from service in July, 2010, when he will attain 60 years of age.
6. The counsel for the respondents submitted that a person is supposed to have been appointed at the age of 18 years and age of superannuation being 60 years, at best, the employee can continue in service' for about 42 years (maximum). As the petitioner will complete 42 years of service on 10th July, 2003, he was asked to superannuation, vide order dated 21st January, 2000.
7. Similar case fell for consideration before a Division Bench of Patna High Court in Mokhtar Ahmad v. U.S. Road Transport Corporation, reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 183. Therein, the employee was asked to be superannuated on completion of 40 years of service.
8. Similar plea was taken that a person who is engaged on daily wage at the age of 18 years and he was to superannuate at the age of 58 years and thereby for a maximum of 40 years, such person can be engaged in service.
9. The High Court of Patna taking into consideration the provision of Rule that no lower age limit was fixed and under the Rule such person is to continue till he attains the age of superannuation, held such decision as incorrect and bad in law.
10. In the present case, as the petitioner has a right to continue in service till the petitioner attains the age of 60 years, the respondents cannot force the petitioner to retire him from service on the ground of completion of 42 years of service.
11. The impugned order dated 21st January, 2000 being against the law, the same is set aside. The respondents will allow the petitioner to continue upto the age of 60 years.
12. If there is nothing on the record of respondents to suggest the date of birth of petitioner, they may ask the petitioner to produce a copy of the relevant evidence in support of his dale of birth.
13. In such case, if the petitioner produces any copy of record of the Company, including the pay slip showing the date of birth, the respondents will accept the same, if the document is found to be genuine and act accordingly.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Disposed of accordingly.