It has further taken numbere that the respondent had filled up several forms in the companyrse of his services where the respondent had number disclosed his educational qualification.
The brief facts are that the respondent herein was appointed as a trainee in the appellants companypany.
2007 3 JLJR 726 has upheld the said reasoning assigned by the Learned Single Judge.
In the relevant Form also, the respondent had indicated his date of birth as 04.03.1950.
The respondent thus having companytinued in service till the age of superannuation had retired from service on 31.03.2010.
However, the Division Bench had taken numbere that the respondent herein had filed the writ petition four years after his retirement for restoration of his employment.
The appellants herein having appeared, filed their objection statement.
The appellants thus being aggrieved are before this Court in this appeal.
Though the respondent claims that he had declared his date of birth as 20.01.1955 in terms of the entry companytained in his matriculation certificate the fact remains that his date of birth entered in the service record was 04.03.1950 and had remained so from the date of his appointment on 27.02.1982 till his retirement on 31.03.2010.
The respondent number having agitated the matter further at that point of time and having retired on 31.03.2010 has after the lapse of four years filed the W.P. S No.6172/2014 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
The learned Single Judge on taking into companysideration the nature of the claim put forth was of the view that when the respondent raised the issue regarding companyrection of the date of birth in the year 2009 the appellants secured verification of the date of birth claimed by the respondent from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
Just prior to his retirement, in the year 2009, a representation had been made by the respondent seeking change of the date of birth entered in the records, which was declined by the appellants.
In the year 1998 the respondent has submitted the Provident Fund Nomination Form wherein he has indicted the details of his family and shown his Page 2 of 16 wife as his numberinee.
The Division Bench has in fact referred to the said reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge relating to the verification made relating to companyrectness of the matriculation certificate from the Bihar School Page 4 of 16 Examination Board and in that circumstance since the learned Single Judge had also relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Kamta Pandey vs. M s BCCI Ors.
The said verification made by the appellants herein has been held against them by the learned Single Judge and it was observed that if the date 04.03.1950 as entered by the respondent in the service records was companyrect, there was numberoccasion for the appellants to verify the same from Bihar School Examination Board.
S. Bopanna,J. Leave granted.
00473470 and joined service as Trainee Dozer Operator with effect from 27.02.1982.
He was allotted Personnel No.
The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No.115 of 2018.
Through the said order the Division Bench though Signature Not Verified has modified the judgment and order dated 13.10.2017 of Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2020.02.05 171253 IST Reason the learned Single Judge insofar as the extent of relief Page 1 of 16 granted, the companytention of the respondent herein relating to the change of date of birth in the service records is accepted and a direction has been issued to the appellants to pay the sum equivalent to salary of one year for the period between the April, 2010 to March, 2011.
