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