Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18679 (JHR)

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR v. BADRI NATH ROY

LPA/401/2024 · 2025-08-07

Rajesh Shankar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:22293-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI LPA No. 401 of 2024 1. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. represented through its Chairman- cum-Managing Director, having office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O.- Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad 2. The Senior Manager, Personnel Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Nagar, P.O.- Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad 3. The Dy Manager (Personnel), Central Hospital, PO-Jagjiwan Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad 4. The Chief of Medical Services, Central Hospital, PO-Jagjiwan Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad... ... Appellants Versus Badri Nath Roy, aged about 55 years, son of Late Habu Babu Roy, Resident of J.C. Mallick Road, Near Pragati Enclave Apartment, Hirapur, PO- Hirapur, PS & District-Dhanbad … ... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate --------- 09/Dated: 07.08.2025 1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2) We have gone through the order passed by the learned writ Court and find no reason to take a different view beyond the fact that the petitioner at the time of his appointment was an under matriculate and his age was shown as 24 years as on 13.03.1987. Thereafter, after completing the matriculation, the school leaving certificate of the petitioner indicated that his date of birth is 21.12.1963 whereas the appellant who try and correct the same to be 13.03.1963 based upon the year of his service at his initial entry of service on 13.03.1987. The learned writ Court has rightly observed that such exercise of changing the date of superannuation of the petitioner based upon his initial date of birth which was based on guess work was not permissible at the fag end of the service of the respondent. 2025:JHHC:22293-DB 3) Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 4) Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) NAFR (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sharda/MM/ Cp.02