IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.818 of 2010 SHRI HIRALAL PASWAN, SON OF SRI SASTU PASWAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLAH ITTA, P.O. & P.S. JAHANABAD, DISTRICT JAHANABAD, BIHAR. ---------------PETITIONER/APPELLANT. Versus 1.THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN, VIDHUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2.THE MEMBER (ADMINIATRATION) BOARD, BIAHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDHUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3.THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDHUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4.THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY BOARD, SERPANTINE ROAD, PATNA. 5.THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, GAY ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CIRCLE, GAYA. 6.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, JAHANABAD, BIHAR. 7.THE LABOUR & WELFARE OFFICER, ELECTRIC SUPLY DIVISION, JAHANABAD. ------------RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 07-05-2010 I.A. No.4371 of 2010. This is an application for condnation of delay of two years 103 days in preferring the appeal. Before issuing notice on the question of limitation, we have thought it apt to dwell into the merits of the appeal. In this intra-Court appeal challenge is to the 2 order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.1389 of 2003, whereby the petitioner had challenged the entry in his service book. As regard his date of birth, it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the date of birth actually is 13.9.1949, but it has been corrected as 13.9.1934. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the petitioner has come to this Court on earlier occasion and this Court vide order dated 28.9.1999 had directed the appeal preferred by him before the Member, Administration should be disposed of within a period of two months. Thereafter, the appeal was disposed of and no error was found as regards the date of birth. The learned Single Judge further opined that the writ petitioner has submitted an application quite belatedly after 20 years serving in the Board for correction of date of birth and, therefore, the same was not acceptable. It is apposite to note that the appellant retired in the year 1999. Number of documents were brought before the learned Single Judge, but the same did not find favour because of the belated approach. Learned 3 counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the decision in the case of ‘Sarjoo Prasad Vs. General Manager & Another’ reported in (1981) 3 SCC 544. On a perusal of the said decision, we find in the said case their Lordships of the Apex Court dealt with alternation of date of birth by the employer, but the same is not the case here. In view of aforesaid, we do not find justifiable reason to issue notice on the application for condonation of delay and accordingly the same stands rejected and as a logical corollary the appeal also stands dismissed in limine. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)