Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd vs Shimbhu Dayal S/O Shri Jumma Ram
2021 Latest Caselaw 514 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

            D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 805/2020

                                        In

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14838/2016

1.       Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
         Through Managing Director.
2.       Chief Personnel Officer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
         Limted, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
3.       Executive Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran
         Nigam Limted, Bhiwadi, District Alwar.
                                                                  ----Appellants
                                    Versus
Shimbhu Dayal S/o Shri Jumma Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Village Harchandpur, Post Santhalaka, Tehsil Tijara, District
Alwar.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Priya Pareek Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat Advocate

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

Judgment / Order

20/01/2021

Appellants have filed the appeal challenging the order dated

27.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ

petition filed by the respondent was allowed.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

respondent had not correctly shown his date of birth in the record

and if the date of joining of respondent is taken to be correct then

he was below 18 years of age at the time of entry in service.

Respondent joined on the post of Helper on 13.01.1974 and

(2 of 2) [SAW-805/2020]

retired from the post of SSA-II on 30.06.2015. After retirement of

the respondent, his date of birth was changed in the service

record vide order dated 30.05.2016 and recovery order was

issued. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has

held that the impugned orders dated 07.12.2015 and 30.05.2016

were liable to be set aside as they had been passed without

affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondent.

Respondent had worked with the department satisfactorily and

during his service period, no objection was raised by the

appellants regarding his date of birth. It has also been noticed by

the learned Single Judge that no disciplinary action has been

taken against the erring officer of the department.

Since, the impugned orders had been passed without

affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondent, learned

Single Judge had, thus, rightly allowed the writ petition filed by

the respondent. Moreover, no objection was raised by the

appellants during the service tenure of the respondent and date of

birth of the respondent was changed by the appellants after his

retirement without affording him any opportunity of hearing.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

                                   (MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J                                                     (SABINA),J

                                   Sanjay Kumawat-46









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)