Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
GENERAL MANAGER (MARKETING) HINDUSTAN FERTILIZERCORPORATION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SUBODH CHANDRA DAS & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/01/1988
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
SINGH, K.N. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 701 1988 SCR (2) 862
1988 SCC (1) 594 JT 1988 (1) 241
1988 SCALE (1)234
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 226-Power of High
Court-Scope of-Writ Petition filed by employee for altering
date of birth-High Court held that date of birth as entered
in Service Register not to be interfered but directed
reappointment of employee for 3 years after retirement as a
special case-Whether High Court justified in passing such
order.
HEADNOTE:
%
The first respondent, an employee of the appellant-
Corporation, who was to retire from his service on 1.6.89 on
completion of 58 years of age as per the date of birth
recorded in the register maintained by the employer, the
appellant-Corporation, filed a writ petition in the High
Court claiming that his date of birth should be altered to
20th October, 1938, relying on a certificate issued by the
Chief Medical Officer. The petition was contested by the
appellant-Corporation.
A Single Judge of the High Court held that it was not
possible to accept the case of the first respondent that he
was born in the year 1938, and that the date of birth as
recorded in the register of the appellant-Corporation should
not be interfered with. However, taking into consideration
the problems of the respondent, domestic or otherwise he
made an order to the effect that the first respondent may be
given three more years service after his due date of
retirement by reappointing him for that period, as a special
case.
Allowing the appeal,
^
HELD: The Single Judge of the High Court having found
that the date of birth of the first respondent as recorded
in the register of the appellant-Corporation should not be
interfered with, committed a serious error in making an
order directing the appellant-Corporation, as a special
case, to reappoint the first respondent for a period of
three more years after his due date of retirement, on
1.6.89, on the ground that he had his problems, domestic or
otherwise. There was hardly any justification for passing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
such an order under Article 226 of the Constitution. [864B-
C]
863
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1068 of
1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.86 of the Patna
High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2523 of 1981.
A.K. Sil and S.K. Sinha for the Appellants.
D.N. Goburdhan for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R D E R
The 1st respondent-Subodh Chandra is working as an
operator grade-III under the Hindustan Fertilizer
Corporation Ltd. at Sindhri. The date of birth recorded in
the register maintained by the Hindustan Fertilizer
Corporation Ltd. was 1.6.1931 and in the usual course he has
to retire from service on 1.6.1989 on completion of 58 years
of age. He, however, filed a writ petition in the High Court
of Patna claiming that his date of birth should be altered
to 20th October, 1938. In support of his case he relied on a
certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Sindhri.
The petition was contested by the Hindustan Fertilizer
Corporation of India Ltd. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties, the learned Judge who heard the petition
held that it was not possible to accept the case of the 1st
respondent that he was born in the year 1938 and he further
found that the date of birth as recorded in the register of
the Corporation should not be interfered with. The learned
Judge, however, passed the following order:
"S. Shamsul Hasan, J.: After the matter had been
heard at great length and legal and factual pros
and cons had been examined it appeared that the
year of the birth of the petitioner being 1931
cannot be assailed nor interfered with.
Consequently, Mr. Ojha felt that since the
petitioner has his problem domestic or otherwise-
and he in 1971 was in fact given to understand
that his year of birth would be 1938, some
compassionate endowment may be made in his favour.
I am entirely in agreement with Mr. Ojha.
I, therefore, dispose of this application
with an expression of my desire, which may be
treated as a mandate, that the petitioner may be
given three more years of service as a
864
special case after his due date of retirement,
which could be done by reappointing him for that
period. It is made clear that this may not be
treated as a precedent for any other employee of
the Institution or in any other case."
We are of opinion that the learned Single Judge having
found that the date of birth of the 1st respondent as
recorded in the register of the appellant-Corporation should
not be interfered with, committed a serious error in making
an order directing the appellant-Corporation ’as a special
case’ to reappoint the 1st respondent for a period of three
more years after his ’due date of retirement’, which is
1.6.1989. There was hardly any justification for passing
such an order under Article 226 of the Constitution. The
reason given by the High Court is wholly untenable. This
appeal filed by the Corporation against the order passed by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
the learned Single Judge before this Court has, therefore,
to be allowed. We set aside the judgment of the High Court
and dismiss the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
N.P.V. Appeal allowed.
865