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

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 862 · Decided: 29-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GENERAL MANAGER (MARKETING) HINDUSTAN 
'r . 
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 
c 
interfered but directed reappointment of employee for 3 years after re-
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 
D 
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. 
E 
A Single Judge of the High Court held that it was not possible to y 
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 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 
• 
F 
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 
G 
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, J
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 
H justification for passing such an order under Article 226 of the 
Constitution. [864B-C) 
862 
r 
~ 
r 
" l 
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. 
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 
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. 
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 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 
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 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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11985) 2 S.C.R. 
special case after his due date of retirement, which could be 
done by reappointin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.