High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Suva Lal v. S.C.Beri - COCP-330-1993  RD-P&H 4809 (26 July 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYRNA AT
C.O.C.P. No.330 of 1993
Date of Decision:- 31.7.2006.
Suva Lal & Ors. ....Petitioners
Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate.
S.C.Beri & anr. ....Respondents
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
SURYA KANT, J.
The matter has been heard at length. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents has filed an affidavit dated 30.7.2006 of Rajpal Singh , Law Officer of the Cement Corporation of India at Charkhi Dadri, which is taken on record. The affidavit has been filed with an endeavour to show that the directions issued by this Court on 8.7.1992 in C.W.P.No.5196 of 1992 (Annexure P-1) have been complied with in letter and spirit.
A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit reveals that the dates of birth of the petitioners have been determined on the basis of :- i) Record of ESI;
ii) School Leaving Certificates; and
C.O.C.P. No.330 of 1993 2
iii)Report of the Medical Board.
The modes of determination of dates of birth as adopted by the respondents are, thus, in consonance with the orders dated 23.7.1990, 7.1.1991 and 5.11.1991 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has pointed out one or two typographical errors in relation to the dates of retirement as determined and mentioned in the aforesaid affidavit. As per his date of birth determined by the respondents, petitioner No.9 (Subhash) is entitled to retire on 30.6.1998 and not on 30.6.1996. This error has been admitted by Mr.Mehtani, learned counsel for the respondents.
In this view of the matter, it is directed that petitioner No.9 shall be treated to have retired from service for all intents and purposes on 30.6.1998 (and not 30.6.96).
Learned counsel for the petitioners then points out that in respect of Bala Ram (petitioner No.28) who sought voluntary retirement on 25.5.1999, the respondents are required to change the date of his birth as determined by the Medical Board. It is argued that since Bala Ram was found to be 55 years of age in August 2002, he is entitled to be treated to have born in the year 1947 and not the year 1942 as depicted by the respondents in their affidavit.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of Bala Ram, Petitioner No.28, is fully justified and while accepting the same, it is directed that the said Bala Ram shall be treated to have born in the year 1947 though his date of voluntary retirement shall continue to be 25.5.1999.
However, his retiral benefits shall be determined by treating 1947 as the C.O.C.P. No.330 of 1993 3
year of his birth.
In this view of the matter and having regard to the fact that the respondents have determined the dates of birth of the petitioners in accordance with the directions issued by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no further action is required to be taken in this petition.
Needless to say that the respondents shall make sincere efforts and shall take the necessary steps as early as possible towards the release of consequential benefits in favour of the petitioners.
Rule stands discharged.
July 31, 2006 ( SURYA KANT )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.