DECISION This appeal is directed against the decision of the Fifth Labour Court, given on 20th January, 1983, dismissing the appellant's grievance petition challenging his retirement on the basis of his age as recorded' in his service book on the basis of the estimation by the Medical Officer of the respon-- dent organization.
2. The admitted facts of this case are that the appellant was employed in the Deputy Conservator's Department of the respondent organization as a peon and subsequently as Havaldar. It appears that the appellant did not furnish any proof about his age at the time of entry of service in the K. P.
T. And, accordingly, he was referred to the Medical Officer of the K. P. T. Who assessed his age .As 28 years on 23rd July, 1951 when he medically examined the appellant. The appellant made no representation to the K. P. T. Authorities against the said assessment of his age by the Medical Officer until 19th April, 1982, when he was informed through a letter from the Deputy Conservator that he would be attaining the age of superannuation on 1st July, 1983 and was advised to apply for leave preparatory to retirement in sufficient time before 1st July, 1982 so that he could avail full leave preparatory to retirement. It appears that on the same day the appellant made a representation to the authorities to the effect that his age has been wrongly assessed by the Medical Officer of the K. P. T. And in support of his contention he submitted his school leaving certificate from India. His representation was rejected on the grounds, firstly, that his age bad been assessed by the Medical Officer at the time of his entry in service, and secondly, that though he had been informed of his age as assessed by the Medical Officer he had not made any representation against the same, within the prescribed period. Aggrieved by this reply, the appellant preferred a grievance petition before the learned Fifth Labour Court after serving the requisite grievance notice upon the employer. As already indicated the learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that the appellant had failed to make any representation against his age as assessed by the Medical Officer in the K. P. T. Within the prescribed period.
3. Mr. Mughees Ahmed Samdani, the learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon the circular of the K. P. T., dated 22nd June, 1980. Paragraph 2 of the said circular provides that such of the employees who have not so far been informed of the recorded age should be informed of their ages with the advice to represent against the recorded age within three months with documentary proof and they were warned that after expiry of the said period of 3 months no representation would be entertained in this behalf. It was submitted by Mr. Samdani that no intimation was received by the respondent with regard to his recorded age on the basis of the assessment of the Medical Officer of the K. P. T. And hence the representation of the appellant was in time and could not be ignored or disregarded by the respondent organization.. Mr. Syed Shujaat Ali, the learned counsel for the K. P. T., relied in this behalf, upon paragraph 3 of the grievance petition of the appellant wherein he has categorically admitted that he was verbally informed by the Depart-- ment in the year 1981 about the issuance of the circular, dated 22nd June, 1980, including the recording of his age. The second document relied upon by Mr. Syed Shujaat Ali is the representation made by the appellant on 19th April, 1982. It may be pointed out that this was the first representation made by the appellant requesting for reappraisal of his age as assessed by the Medical Officer. In that representation' the appellant has once again conceded that some time back a circular was issued by the department asking those employees who had. Any doubt about the correctness of their age as recorded to produce documentary proof, if any alteration was desired. According to his representation he had been making efforts to get the documents from his native place and upon receiving the same he was now making the representation. In other words, in his representation he has conceded that he was informed about the issue of the circular as also his age as recorded on the basis of the assessment of the Medical Officer but the delay in making the representation was due to the fact that he received the document from his native place in India late. The reply of the respondent organization to the grievance notice of the appellant also indicates that the appellant was informed of the date of his birth by. The department but he did not represent against the same within the prescribed period. I have referred to the provisions of the circular of the 'K. P. T. Upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Samdani that it had fixed a period of three months within which represen--tation in respect of the recorded age could be made and after the expiry of the said period no such representation was to be entertained. It has - -been admitted by the appellant himself in his grievance petition and in his representation that he had come to know of the issuance of the circular as regards the incorrect recording of the age some time back in 1980. Since the first representation made by the appellant against recording of his age was dated 9th April, 1982, much after the expiry of three months from the time that be was informed in 1981 about issuance of the said circular and recording of the age the representation was clearly belated.. The K. P. T. Authorities, therefore, were within their right to reject the representation of the appellant as has been done by them.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above I would agree with the view taken by the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal.