Kailash Kumar Mandal Vs. the Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund and anr.

Kailash Kumar Mandal vs The Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund and anr.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Feb 13, 2009

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/517543

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/517543
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: R.R. Prasad, J.
Decided On: Feb 13, 2009
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kailash Kumar Mandal

Respondent

The Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: [2009(2)JCR283(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - 1 as well as respondent no......committed murder of the father of the petitioner, a case was registered against him under section 302 and other allied sections of the indian penal code. in course of trial, he disclosed his age as 60 years on 19.7.2004 in his statement made under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure. therefore, information was given to the department about the age of the respondent no. 2 and it was questioned as to how he, even after attaining the age of 60 years, is being allowed to be continued in service but when nothing was done in the matter the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.3. a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 as well as respondent no. 2 wherein it has been stated by both the respondents that date of birth in the service record has been recorded as 26.2.1962 on the basis of educational certificate and as such, the petitioner has not attained the age of superannuation.4. it has further been stated on behalf of the respondent no. 1 that on getting information about the age recorded under section 313, an enquiry was made whereby genuinely of the educational certificate, upon which age of the petitioner had been recorded in the service record, was verified and the said document was found to be genuine and therefore, the respondent no. 2 was even put to medical board and the age assessed by the medical board corresponds with the age recorded in the service record and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent no. 1 to pass any adverse order against the interest of the respondent no. 2.5. having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that age of the respondent no. 2 has been recorded in the service record on the basis of educational certificate which document on enquiry was found to be genuine and, therefore, any other document bearing the age of the respondent no. 2 would not be very material so far age of the respondent no. 2 is concerned. moreover, the petitioner does not have any locus.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.R. Prasad, J.

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 in spite of attaining the age of superannuation has been allowed to be continued in service by the respondent No. 1 in his office (Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, Dhanbad).

2. In this regard it was submitted that when the respondent No. 2 committed murder of the father of the petitioner, a case was registered against him under Section 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, he disclosed his age as 60 years on 19.7.2004 in his statement made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, information was given to the department about the age of the respondent No. 2 and it was questioned as to how he, even after attaining the age of 60 years, is being allowed to be continued in service but when nothing was done in the matter the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 wherein it has been stated by both the respondents that date of birth in the service record has been recorded as 26.2.1962 on the basis of educational certificate and as such, the petitioner has not attained the age of superannuation.

4. It has further been stated on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that on getting information about the age recorded under Section 313, an enquiry was made whereby genuinely of the educational certificate, upon which age of the petitioner had been recorded in the service record, was verified and the said document was found to be genuine and therefore, the respondent No. 2 was even put to Medical Board and the age assessed by the Medical Board corresponds with the age recorded in the service record and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 1 to pass any adverse order against the interest of the respondent No. 2.

5. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that age of the respondent No. 2 has been recorded in the service record on the basis of educational certificate which document on enquiry was found to be genuine and, therefore, any other document bearing the age of the respondent No. 2 would not be very material so far age of the respondent No. 2 is concerned. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the authority of respondent No. 1 allowing the respondent No. 2 to continue in the service.

6. Accordingly. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2009 Same Parties Kailash Kumar Mandal vs The Commissioner, Coal Mines Providen... Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.R. Prasad, J.

Criminal