Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The 2 Judge Bench of the Supreme court comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Ajay Rastogi could not reach consensus on whether the age or number of years served on the job would determine the basis of retirement in cases where a person was employed who at the time of the minority.
In the present case, Gopal Prasad (appellant), an employee of the Bihar School Examination Board was appointed to service on May 20, 1970, when he was a minor of age 15 ½. In January 1998, the age of appointment to inferior posts was increased to 18 from 16. However, in January 2004, the Bihar School Examination Board resolved to treat the age of entry into service of those who were below 18 years at the time of joining service, like 18 years at the time of their appointment. After that in February 2012, an RTI was filed seeking for enquiring about the date of superannuation fixed by the board for appellant. In March 2012, the board informed the appellant that his retirement was deemed to be on May 31, 2010, on completion of his 58 years. However, since the retirement age has later been increased to completion of 60 years, the latest of retirement would be May 31, 2012. Further appellant contended that his retirement would only fall on November 18, 2014, in view of his actual date of birth. The question before the court was whether the government was correct in retiring him in May 2012 or should be allowed to complete 60 years of age in service that is until November 2014.
Thereafter Justice Indira Banerjee ruled that the appeal should be allowed. She held that the appellant is entitled to a declaration that the appellant was entitled to continue in service till November 18, 2014. She further cleared that the appellant should be entitled to all the consequential benefits including pensionary benefits. However, Justice Ajay Rastogi differing from justice Banerjee held that appeal should be dismissed. Justice Rastogi held that in the present case when the appellant was entered into service, he was 15 years and 6 months old and had not attained the age of majority. Therefore, the Bench was unable to agree so, Justice Banerjee has directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India.
86540
103860
630
114
59824