Letters Patent Appeal No. 44 OF 2007 (Against the Judgment and Order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7339 of 2004 on 13th October, 2006) RAM GULAM PASWAN --------------------(Appellant) --Versus-- THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ---------------(Respondents) ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjeet Tiwary. For the Respondents : Mr. Chhotelal Narain Singh, S.C.- I. & Mr. Ajeet Kumar, JC to SC-I ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, J.J. Appellant, a Choukidar, became a Government employee in 1990. In 2000, the Government decided that a Medical Board should be constituted for the purpose of ascertaining the age of Choukidars, who became Government employees. In terms of the said decision of the Government, a Medical Board was constituted and, amongst other Chaukidars, the appellant presented himself before the Medical Board on 3rd February, 2001 for the purpose of checking up his age. The Medical Board submitted its report on 30th August, 2001. In the meantime, it was held out to the appellant that 2 he having reached his age of superannuation on 21st August, 2001, he should retire from service on 21st August, 2001. The appellant was, thus, superannuated on 21st August, 2001. The Medical Board’s Report dated 31st August, 2001, however, suggested that the appellant was in between the age of 52-55. Acting on the said Report, on 14th February, 2002 the appellant was reinstated. Subsequently, by a decision dated 25th February, 2004, the appellant was purported to be superannuated with effect from 21st August, 2001. This resulted in filing of the writ petition. In the writ petition, the appellant contended that the appellant was reinstated on 14th February, 2002, but after having had paid his salaries for some period, he was not paid his salaries for two months and this Court directed the employer to took into such grievance of the appellant and as a sequel thereto, since the appellant approached this Court for two months salary, the said order dated 25th February, 2004 was passed mala fide and that too without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It was contended that once the report of the 3 Medical Board was accepted and acted upon, unilaterally it could not be decided not to act upon the same. It was submitted that the report of the Medical Board was accepted in relation to many other Chaukidars, who were similarly examined by the Medical Board, but in the matter of acceptance of the report of the Medical Board a hostile discrimination has been made in so far as appellant is concerned. The writ petition having been dismissed with an observation that the salaries paid during the period the appellant remained reinstated should not be recovered from him, the appellant is before us seeking to challenge the order under appeal on the ground that the learned Judge without taking note of entries made in the Service Book and without taking note of the facts recorded above unjustly permitted reduction of the service period of the appellant. In the body of the writ petition as well as in the body of the pleadings filed in the instant appeal, there is no assertion that there is no entry in the service records of the appellant which would suggest that the appellant in 4 terms of such recording would not reach his date of superannuation on 21st August, 2001. However, the fact remains that on 21st August, 2001 the appellant was made to retire with effect from that date proceeding on the basis that according to the service records of the appellant, he is to retire on 21st August, 2001. This decision was not assailed by the appellant, which suggests that there cannot be any dispute that the entries made in the service records of the appellant would suggest that he would attain his age of superannuation on 21st August, 2001. The learned counsel has rightly submitted that report of Medical Board constituted by the employer once having been accepted and acted upon cannot be unilaterally scuttled. A Medical Board is constituted for the purpose of ascertainment of age of an employee, when there is a dispute. In the case of Mehdi Mirza Vrs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors., reported in 2005(3) P.L.J.R. 325, cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, there was a dispute as to the date of birth of the employee concerned in view of interpolations in the column of the age and date of birth. In such circumstances, 5 in order to resolve such dispute the case of the employee in that case was referred to the Medical Board. In the instant case, there was no such dispute at all. As a result, sorting out any such dispute through Medical Board did not arise. The appellant wants to sail in the same boat as the other Chaukidars, who had been similarly examined by the Medical Board, but how their case is similar to that of the appellant has not been attempted to be established, except by saying that they too were checked up by the Medical Board. In law, a mistake committed can always be corrected. In absence of a dispute pertaining to age, as reflected in the service record, question of sending an assumed dispute to the Medical Board did not arise. Once such mistake was noticed, the same could always be corrected. However, having regard to the fact that the appellant was reinstated on 14th February, 2002, his reinstatement continued until the mistake was corrected on 25th February, 2004 and accordingly, at least until 25th February, 2004 the appellant was entitle to serve and for that matter was entitle to be remunerated, but for all 6 practical purposes, it must be deemed that the appellant was entitled to serve only up to 21th August, 2001 and accordingly, the learned Judge has clearly held that remunerations paid to the appellant after his reinstatement shall not be recovered from him. For the reasons, as above, we see no reasons to interfere with the case. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Patna High Court, 31st July, 2008, N.A.F.R./S.B.P. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad. J.)