SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(SC) 223

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
R. S. Kallolimath, Appellant
Versus
The State of Mysore and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1659 of 1972,
D/- 6-5-1977.
Advocates Appeared
B. P. Singh Adv., for Appellant; N. Nettar Adv., for Respondents.

Advocates:
B.P.SINGH, N.Nettra

Headnote:

Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 136 - Enquiry - Department of Electricity - Claim extension of service - State Government to furnish information regarding educational institutions where he had studied- On appellants supplying requisite information State Government made inquiries from heads of various institutions in which appellant had prosecuted his studies and on coming to know that his date of birth as entered in registers of institutions was it accepted that date as correct date of appellants birth and informed Accountant General Chief Electrical Engineer of Mysore and appellant accordingly on appellant thereupon raised a protest and made representations to concerned authorities against alteration in date of his birth contending that date of birth declared by him at time of his joining State service was absolutely correct- On matter being put up before Minister for Industries and Electricity he directed that appellant be asked to see him put forth his case before him together with evidence if any- Though appellant could not appear before Minister on he did appear before him on when latter after hearing former recorded following note on concerned –Held, Court have heard learned counsel for parties- Although in view of decision of this Court in State of Orissa no longer be disputed that State is not precluded merely because of acceptance of date of birth of its employee in service register from holding an enquiry if there exist sufficient reasons for holding such enquiry and refixing his date of birth it passes our comprehension as to why after granting an extension of service to appellant presumably in terms its Memorandum Government retraced its steps and suddenly terminated services of appellant - Nothing tangible has been brought to our notice which could have justified Government to deprive appellant of benefit of clear and categoric directions contained in its aforesaid memorandum where it was clearly laid down that "all such Government servants whose of birth have been revised to an earlier date We have heard learned counsel for parties- Although in view of decision of this Court in State of Orissa can no longer be disputed that State is not precluded merely because of acceptance of date of birth of its employee in service register from holding an enquiry there exist sufficient reasons for holding such enquiry and refixing his date of birth it passes our comprehension as to why after granting an extension of service to appellant presumably in terms of its Memorandum Government retraced its steps and suddenly terminated services of appellant on March 31 1959- Nothing tangible has been brought to our notice which could have justified Government to deprive appellant of benefit of clear and categoric directions contained in its aforesaid memorandum where it was clearly laid down that "all such Government servants whose dates of birth have been revised to an earlier - Appeal allowed

Judgment

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. 1662 of 1971 seeking issuance of a writ quashing order No. P. W. D./EBS 70 dated March 31, 1971, passed by the first respondent herein directing that January 28, 1904, be accepted as the correct 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.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to 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. 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. 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. In course of time, the appellant was promoted as Assistant Superintendent, Power and Light, Mysore. In or about 1950, the erstwhile Government of Mysore in pursuance of the policy decision taken by it in respect of the dates of birth of Government servants started revising the entries relating to the dates of birth in case of those of its employees whose dates as entered in the service register were different from the entries made in the school or college registers. Consequently the appellant was also called upon by the State Government to furnish information regarding the educational institutions where he had studied. On the appellants supplying the requisite information, the State Government made inquiries from the heads of the various institutions in which the appellant had prosecuted his studies and on coming to know that his date of birth as entered in the registers of the institutions was January 28, 1904, it accepted that date as the correct date of the appellants birth and informed the Accountant General, the Chief Electrical Engineer of Mysore and the appellant accordingly on June 26, 1954. The appellant thereupon raised a protest and made representations to the concerned authorities against the alteration in the date of his birth contending that the date of birth declared by him at the time of his joining the State service was absolutely correct. On the matter being put up before the Minister for Industries and Electricity, he directed that the appellant be asked to see him on November 16, 1955, to put forth his case before him together with evidence, if any. Though the appellant could not appear before the Minister on November 16, 1955, he did appear before him on December 12, 1955 when the latter after hearing the former recorded the following note on the concerned file:-

"Sri R. S. Kallolimath, Assistant Superintendent, Power and Light, Mysore, has submitted a memorandum through the Chief Electrical Engineer praying that his date of birth may kindly be accepted as 23rd December, 1912 instead of 28th January, 1904 as already ordered by Government. He submits that 23-12-1912 is the date given by him in his application for appointment and that it has been changed to 28-1-1904 on the basis of the information furnished by the College in which he studied. It is asserted that when he was called upon to furnish evidence in the matter he had only his horoscope written in Marathi and that he was not able to lay his figure (written in pencil as finger above) on other collateral evidence available in his family records. 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


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top