On March 28, 1962, the appellant filed a suit against the first respondent seeking a a declaration that he still companytinued in service and was entitled to all the benefits of his service, and that the companymunications dated June 14, 1958 and April 1, 1959 were invalid and were liable to be quashed.
While upholding the part of the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt which declared that the decision of the Government fixing the appellants date of birth as January 28, 1904 and the Gov ernment order dated April 1, 1959 retiring the appellant from service was invalid and the appellant was still in service on the date of the suit, the High Court quashed that part of the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt which directed the State Government to accept the date of birth as entered in the service register as the companyrect date.
In companyrse of time, the appellant was promoted as Assistant Superintendent, Power and Light, Mysore.
The Enquiry Officer accordingly held an enquiry and submitted his report to the Government, the operative portion whereof runs thus I have carefully companysidered the oral and documentary evidence placed before me on behalf of Government.
At the hearing of this petition on December 13, 1961, companynsel for the appellant made a statement before the companyrt withdrawing the petition without prejudice to the other remedies that might be available to his client number only by way of institution of a suit but also under the Official Memorandum issued by the Government on August 14, 1958.
Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed a writ petition, being writ petition No.
The original declaration has been produced.
Dissatisfied with this order, the appellant applied to the High Court for grant of certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court under Article 133 1 of the Constitution which was rejected by the High Court vide order dated March 3, 1972.
The Registers of these Institutions for the relevant periods are produced by appropriate authority and brought on record.
on the ground that an equally efficacious relief companyld be obtained by filing a suit and there was numberprayer in the plaint for a specific amount by way of arrears of salary.
10612 50/ A.P.S. 21 51 6 dated 4 November, 1952, should be granted extension of service equal to half the period of difference between the date of birth as originally indicated in the Government records and the revised date of birth.
With regard to the alternative relief sought by the appellant, the High Court observed as follows The alternative prayer, for the issue of a mandatory injunction with a direction to Government to implement the companymunication sic of the Government dated 14 8 1958 does number arise for companysideration in view of the fact that the order of the Government has been declared invalid.
The first respondent then made an application to the High Court for review of its aforesaid judgment and decree which was disposed of by the Court on July 3, 1 970.
Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the State preferred an appeal to the High Court which was partially accepted vide judgment dated September 20, 1968.
Briefly stated the facts leading of the appeal are The appellant joined service as a Senior Operator in the Department of Electricity of the State of Mysore on November 23, 1945.
This declaration before the Magistrate was made on 4 2 1941, and long before Sri Kallolimath got into service.
The suit was companytested by the State Government inter alia on the grounds that mere entry of the date of birth in the service register of the appellant at the time of his appointment was number companyclusive and that the Government had power and authority to alter the date if it was subsequently found to be incorrect, that the date accepted by the Government, viz.,
The High Court also set aside the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt in so far as it directed the Government to pay all such sums or emoluments as might be found due to the appellant including the emoluments as he might be ultimately entitled to by way of increments etc.
On June 14, 1958, the appellant received a companymunication from the Chief Electrical Engineer informing him that he would be attaining the age of superannuation on January 28, 1959, in accordance with the entries in his companylege register.
1662 of 1971, which, as already stated, was dismissed in limine on July 5, 1971.
Pursuant to the observations made by the High Court on September 8, 1970 while disposing of another writ petition No.
PWD IEBS/70 dated November 18, 1970 directed Shri T. S. Narayana Rao, Joint Secretary to Government of Mysore, General Administration Department, to make an enquiry for the purpose of determining the companyrect date of birth of the appellant.
On March 30, 1959, when the appellant was serving as Executive Engineer at K.G.F. he was informed by the Chief Electrical Engineer on telephone that he had been retired from service with immediate effect and that he should hand over charge of his office.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 5th July, 1971 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. No.
Shri Kallolimath, in his declaration dated 21 4 1950 Exhibit H admitted that he studied in Karnatak School, the Wilsom College and the Royal Institute.
Shortly thereafter i.e. on October 8, 1957, he was promoted as First Grade Superintendent in the scale of Rs.
It further held that though the Government had power to review or alter the date of birth and was number estopped from examining, reviewing or altering the appellants date of birth, it was number justified in altering his date of birth on the basis of the entry in his companylege register which companyld number be accepted as final.
January 28, 1904 was the one which was found in the registers of the institutions in which the appellant had studied that the Government order dated August 14, 1958, did number enable the appellant to claim extension of service as of right and that the suit was barred by time.
GAD 3 DTB 58 and to pay to him all such amounts or emoluments as might be found due to him including the emoluments by way of increments, promotions etc.
1354 of 1969 filed by the appellant to the effect that the Governments power to hold an enquiry into the companyrectness of the date of birth of a Government servant did number companye to an end with the retirement of the Government servant from service, the Government vide order No.
On April 1, 1959, the appellant received a formal written companymunication from the Chief Electrical Engineer reiterating that he had been retired from service with immediate effect.
The appellant challenged the above order before the High Court by means of writ petition No.
1659 of 1972.
He says that subsequently, he had been able to get the original declaration made by Sri Dundappa Kadeppa Jotwar his patron and benefactor before the Magistrate of Terdal Taluk, Sangli State.
Though in the registers of the school and other educational institutions in which the appellant had studied, his date of birth had been recorded as January 28, 1904, he gave March 13, 1912 AD as the date of his birth at the time of his entry into service and produced a horoscope in support of his representation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Thereupon the appellant applied to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitutionfor special leave to appeal which was granted.
It, however, observed that the appellant was number entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated August 14, 1958.
The appellant thereupon wrote to the Chief Electrical Engineer on July 4, 1958, stating that his representation to the State Government was still pending and that the order was number binding on him.
On the formation of the Mysore Electricity Board, the appellants services were lent to the Board with effect from September 30, 1957.
12255 12325/CB.121 50 98 dated 20 March, 1950 and Official Memorandum No.
W.D. EBS 70 dated March 31, 1971, passed by the first respondent herein directing that January 28, 1904, be accepted as the companyrect date of birth of the appellant and the period from January 28, 1959 the date of his attaining superannuation to March 31, 1959 when he actually handed over charge of his office be treated as extension of service.
The years of his stay in these Institutions are also indicated there.
On a companysideration of the evidence adduced before it, the trial companyrt decreed the suit vide its judgment dated March 31, 1965 holding that the suit was within time and that the Government order dated April 1, 1959, retiring the appellant from service without giving him a prior show cause numberice and without affording him an opportunity to rebut the case of the State violated the service rules and the principles of natural justice and was invalid.
550 840 and was posted to the Bangalore Power and Light Civil Area, Bangalore 1.
1662 of 1971 seeking issuance of a writ quashing order No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by Special leave is directed against an order dated July 5, 1971, of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore dismissing in limine writ petition No.
b issue of a mandatory injunction directing the Government to accept the date of birth as entered in the service register as the date of his birth, to work out the date of his attaining superannuation accordingly, and to refrain from accepting or relying on the entry found in the College Register as the date of his birth and to pay all such amounts or emoluments as might be found due to him the appellant including the emoluments which he was legitimately entitled by way of increments, promotion etc In the alternative, the appellant prayed for issue of a mandatory injunction directing the Government to implement the companymunications dated August 14, 1958 issued in their No.
Nettar, for respondents.
P. Singh, for the appellant.
1662 of 1971 .
By numberification dated August 14, 1958, the State Government directed that all such Government servants whose date of birth have been revised to an earlier date companysequent on the policy of the Government of the former Mysore State to review the dates of birth of all servants as set out in D.O. letter No.
524 of 1959, in the High Court of Mysore challenging the action of the Government.
This is how the case is before us.
Relying on the horoscope, the Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer accepted March 13, 1912 as the date of the appellants birth and entry in the service register came to be made accordingly.
The petition was accordingly permitted to be withdrawn.
