Lalan Singh v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21916 of 2018 ====================================================== Lalan Singh Son of Late Ram Nandan Singh, Porter East Central Railway, Rajendra Nagar, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, District-Vaishali (Bihar).

2.

The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur, DistrictVaishali (Bihar). 3.

The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur. 4.

The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Cenral Railway, Danapur. 5.

The Senior Divisional Personnel officer, East Central Railway, Danapur. 6.

The Senior Divisional Financial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY) Date : 31-01-2020 This case is being listed consecutively and the counsel for the petitioner chose to remain absent on each date. When the case was listed on 29.01.2020, we have adjourned the case, but we have made it clear that if the counsel for the petitioner would remain absent, this Court would decide the case on its own merit and the assistance extended by counsel for the Railways. Now we have no option, but to dispose of the matter on merit.

Patna High Court CWJC No.21916 of 2018 dt.31-01-2020 2/2 In this case, the dispute has been raised about the date of birth of the petitioner as he is claiming that his date of birth should have been 18.01.1964 in place of 1.07.1955.

The petitioner has entered into service as casual labour; at the time of his absorption, he was sent for assessment of his age by the Medical Board and the Medical Board has assessed his age as 1.07.1955 and, accordingly, his date of birth has been recorded in the service book; he never challenged the date of birth and at the fag end i.e. at the time of superannuation, he has challenged that his date of birth should have been 18.01.1964, which has not been accepted by the Tribunal.

In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal and, accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) ( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) V.K.Pandey/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 03.02.2020 Transmission Date N.A.