IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17582 of 2008 Ram Naresh Bhagat, S/o-Late Tulsi Bhagat, R/o-Vill.-Pahleja, Via- Dalmianagar, P.S.-Dehri-on-Sone, District-Rohtas. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah through its Vice-Chancellor. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah, Bihar. 3. The Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah, Bihar. 4. The Principal, Jawahar Lal Nehru College, Dehri-on-Sone, Dehri, District- Rohtas. –Respondents. ----------- 09 28.03.2011 The petitioner is a Class-IV employee in Jawahar Lal Nehru College, Dehri-on-Sone a constituted College of Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah. Counter affidavit having been filed, with consent of parties, this writ petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent Principal of the College in prematurely retiring him. As per the counter affidavit, the stand is that as per the service record of the petitioner, petitioner has disclosed his date of birth as 08.09.1949. There were some doubts. The Medical Board was constituted which assessed the petitioner’s age in the year 2006 as between 55 to 60 years. As per the records, the petitioner would be 57 years. Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the College has been constituted Medical Board for the purposes of superannuation. The law being that the lower of the age limit being taken. Petitioner’s age should have been assessed as 55 years and, accordingly, he cannot be made to superannuate before 2013. This is so even though as per his own declaration and his - 2 - service record he was then 57 and would normally retire in the year 2011. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University submits that they have chosen the higher of the age given by the Medical Board. Having considered the matter, in my view, the Medical Board report stating that petitioner is between 55 to 60 in the year 2006 only substantiates the correctness of the date of birth given by the petitioner originally that is 08.09.1949, which puts him in the 57 and is in between 55 to 60. If that be so, then there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the date of birth as given by the petitioner originally and that being so the Medical Report cannot be referred to any more. Petitioner would superannuate as per the date of birth recorded as above in his service record. As petitioner has been made to superannuate in 2008 that is 3 years prior to his date of his superannuation, as per the date of birth available in the records, petitioner would be entitled to full remuneration up to 30.09.2011. Learned counsel for the University points out that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, petitioner is being paid his pensionary benefits. All that is now required to be done is the difference has to be paid by the University to the petitioner as if petitioner continued in service for three more years. Petitioner was, thus, wrongly made to superannuate three years before his actual date of superannuation. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is - 3 - allowed. The order of this Court to be complied by the University, responsibility of which would be on the Registrar of the University, within a period of three months from today and, consequently, the petitioner would be required to join the College for remaining few months. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)