GENERAL MANAGER (MARKETING) HINDUSTAN FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS.versusSUBODH CHANDRA DAS & ORS.

        GENERAL MANAGER (MARKETING) HINDUSTAN                                     'r .
A      FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS.
                           v.
               SUBODH CHANDRA DAS & ORS.
                                                                                   '.

                              JANUARY 29, 1988
B
           [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.)
                                                                                  r
          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 re-
c
                                                                                  -~
    tirement as a special case-Whether High Court justified in passing such·
    order.
        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
D 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
E accept the case of the first respondent that he was born in the year 1938,       y
  and that the date of birth as recorded in the register of the appellant-
  Corporation should not be interfered with. However, taking into con-
  sideration 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
F 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
G 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
                                                                                  J'
  that he had his problems, domestic or otherwise. There was hardly any
  justification for passing such an order under Article 226 of the
H Constitution. [864B-C)
                                     862
                   GENERAL MANAGER H.F.C. v. S.C. DASS                   863

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1068                   A
    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.

                                                                                B


r
         A.K. Sil and S.K. Sitiha for the Appellants.

         D .N. Goburdhan for the Respondents.

         The following Order of the Court was delivered:

                                  ORDER
                                                                                c
~         The lst 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.        D
    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      E
    was not possible to accept the case of the lst 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        F
               great length and legal and factual pros and cons had been


r              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      G
l              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 expre-
               ssion of my desire, which may be treated as a mandate, that
               the petitioner may be given three more years of service as a     H
    864                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             11985) 2 S.C.R.

A               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
B   that the date of birth of the lst respondent as recorded in the register
    of the appellant-Corporation should not be interfered with, commit-
    ted a serious error in making an order directing the appellant-Corpo-
    ration 'as a special case' to reappoint the lst 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
c   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 the learned Single Judge before this Court has, there-
    fore, to be allowed. We set aside the judgment of the High Court and
    dismiss the writ petition filed by the lst respondent. The appeal is
    disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
D
    N.P.V.                                                  Appeal allowed.




                                                                                 ..