AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.R. Prasad, J.—The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 in spite of attaining the age of superannuation has been allowed to be continued in service by the respondent No. 1 in his office (Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, Dhanbad).
In this regard it was submitted that when the respondent No. 2 committed murder of the father of the petitioner, a case was registered against him u/s 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, he disclosed his age as 60 years on 19.7.2004 in his statement made u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, information was given to the department about the age of the respondent No. 2 and it was questioned as to how he, even after attaining the age of 60 years, is being allowed to be continued in service but when nothing was done in the matter the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 wherein it has been stated by both the respondents that date of birth in the service record has been recorded as 26.2.1962 on the basis of educational certificate and as such, the petitioner has not attained the age of superannuation.
It has further been stated on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that on getting information about the age recorded u/s 313, an enquiry was made whereby genuinely of the educational certificate, upon which age of the petitioner had been recorded in the service record, was verified and the said document was found to be genuine and therefore, the respondent No. 2 was even put to Medical Board and the age assessed by the Medical Board corresponds with the age recorded in the service record and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 1 to pass any adverse order against the interest of the respondent No. 2.
Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that age of the respondent No. 2 has been recorded in the service record on the basis of educational certificate which document on enquiry was found to be genuine and, therefore, any other document bearing the age of the respondent No. 2 would not be very material so far age of the respondent No. 2 is concerned. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the authority of respondent No. 1 allowing the respondent No. 2 to continue in the service.
Accordingly. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.