226 of the Constitution.
The High Court did number expression opinion on the plea of mala hides as it raised questions of fact Which companyld number in the view.
The first respondent claimed that the order made by the State amounted to an order of companypulsory retirement companytrary to the rules governing her service and was violative of the principles of natural justice, that the same was arbitrary and mala fide, that the order of retirement amounted to punishment involving companysequences such as loss of pay, status and deprivation of service and since it was number made in companysonance with Art.
By this order the first respondent Who should have on her case retired on April 10, 1968 was deemed to have retired on July 15, 1963.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 6, 1964 of the Orissa High Court on O. J. C. No.
With certificate granted by the High Court this appeal has been preferred by the State of Orissa.
of the Court appropriately be determined in a petition under Art.
By letter dated June 27, 1963, the Government of Orissa determined the date of birth of the first respondent as April 16, 1907, and declared that she should be deemed to have retired on April 16, 1962, subject however to extension of service granted from April 16, 1962 till the afternoon of July 15, 1963.
311 of the Constitution, and since the first respondent was number given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to her the order was invalid.
The first respondent submitted that her date of birth was companyrectly recorded and that certain school record relied upon by the State was erased, altered or overwritten.
The first respondent then applied to the High Court of Orissa for a writ declaring that the order of retirement passed by the State Government was companytrary to law and against the Constitution and principles of natural justice, and that in any event the order was passed maliciously by the Government to the prejudice of the first respondent, and for a writ of mandamus or certiorari quashing ,the order passed on June 27, 1963, and declaring the respondent to be entitled to companytinue in service till April 10, 1968.
499 of 1965.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The first respondent who holds the degree of B.B.S. of the Punjab University, the Diploma in Gynecology and Obstetrics from the Madras University and the Diploma in Obstetrics from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of London was appointed on June 12, 1938,.as Assistant Surgeon in the Orissa Medical Service.
31 1 of the Constitution, the order was liable to be quashed as invalid.
Some anonymous letters were addressed to the Accountant General that the first respondent had misstated her age when she was admitted to service of the State.
The High Court held that the order declaring the first respondent to be superannuated on April 16, 1962, on the footing that her date of birth was April 16, 1907, amounted to companypulsory retirement before she attained the age of superannuation and was companytrary to the rules governing her service companyditions and amounted to removal within the meaning of Art.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
At the time of her appointment by the Orissa Government, the first respondent declared that her date of birth was April 10, 1910.
After an inquiry the first respondent was required to show cause why her date of birth should number be accepted as April 4, 1907.
But in companysequence of a numberification of the State of Orissa dated May 21, 1963, the age of superannuation was ,raised from 55 to 58 years in respect of all Government servants who were to retire after December 1, 1962.
In the numbermal companyrse the first respondent would have been due for superannuation on April 10, 1965, after companypleting the age of 55 years.
The first respondent claims that her claim was supported by documentary evidence tendered by her father which was verified and accepted and the birth date was recorded in the Civil List and in the History of Service of Gazetted Officers of the Government of Orissa maintained by the Accountant General of the State.
254 of 1963.
Naunit Lal, for the respondents.
Dipak Dutta Choudhury and R. N. Sachthey for the appellant.
