IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7968 of 2009 VIDYANAND SINGH, son of Late-Adhik Lal Singh, Resident of village- Mansi(Khutiyachak Husaini) P.S.-Mansi, District-Khagaria, at present, Resident of –village-Kama Asthan, P.S.-Kabira, Via-Chapram Kothi, P.S.- Salkhna, District-Saharsa. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Financial Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The G.M. cum Chief Engineer, Electricity Department, Power House Road, Saharsa. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Electricity Department, Purnea. 6. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Power House, Binodpur, Katihar. ……Respondents. ----------- 03. 26.08.2009 The petitioner was a Class IV employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board. In the service book his date of birth was recorded as 20.04.1949. There were some disputes about the correctness thereof. In 1999 petitioner was asked to appear before the Medical Board and the Medical Board estimated the age of the petitioner between 52 to 54 years. The Board, taking the average of the two treated the petitioner to be 53 years on the day of the report of the Medical Board and accordingly petitioner was made to superannuate in 2006 instead of normal time of superannuation in 2007. Petitioner has now by this writ application challenged the same. - 2 - By this writ petition filed on 13.07.2009 the petitioner submits that in respect of the Electricity Board itself, it has now been settled by the Apex Court that when the report of Medical Board is to be considered, the lower of the two ages have to be taken and average can not be ranged for assessment. He submits that petitioner ought to have been assessed as 52 years instead of 53 and assessing the age of 52 would be what he had declared in his service book. Learned counsel for the Board submits that the report of the Medical Board was of the year 1999. Petitioner had accepted it all along. Petitioner was made to superannuate in 2006 but he did not choose to challenge then. It is three years thereafter he is now challenging his superannuation in 2006 based on Medical Board of 1999 that should not be permitted. His second objection is that after his superannuation in 2006 the petitioner filed another writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 10252 of 2008 claiming retiral dues. He did not choose to challenge either Medical Board Report or his alleged premature retirement in that writ petition instead that writ petition was based on legality of retirement in the year 2006. Thus on both grounds i.e. on grounds of belated challenge and on ground of constructive res-judicata, no relief should be granted to the petitioner. Frankly this - 3 - Court was enquired to grant relief to the petitioner on equitable principle considering he was Class IV employee and virtually illiterate for that matter but the law both with regard to delay in approaching the writ Court and the Principle of res-judicata are well settled. The consideration of petitioner being a class IV employee can not unsettle that position. That being so, I am not inclined to entertain this application, it is accordingly dismissed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)