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

1980 Supreme(SC) 191

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND D.A. DESAI, JJ.
Jiwan Kishore, Appellant
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2736 of 1979
Decided on 11-4-1980.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Discrepancy - Board To Fix Age - Flagrantly Conflicting - Scientific Fixation Of Age - Partial Allowance - No Reason To Ignore - Sole question raised in this appeal is as to age of employee-appellant - There was a discrepancy which was rather wide since year of birth according to one record and according to another record - In view of this considerable discrepancy employer Transport Corporation appointed its Medical Board to fix age of appellant and according to assessment of age by Medical Board - Court see no reason to ignore this scientific fixation of age when we have records which are flagrantly conflicting - Therefore we fix age of appellant in partial allowance of his appeal - This means he will retire at age - Court are not impressed with suggestion that we could pre-fix age of year of retirement as per relevant regulation – Held, Court are not going into its vires in this case as both sides agree that if court fixes age as per Medical Boards determination they will accept and abide by it - On this footing we dispose of appeal in partial allowance and set aside order of retirement and further direct that appellant be continued in service with all consequential benefits as a regular employee - Appeal Partly Allowed.

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. :— The sole question raised in this appeal is as to the age of the employee-appellant. There was a discrepancy, which was rather wide since the year of birth, according to one record was 1917 and according to another record 1927. In view of this considerable discrepancy, the employer, the Delhi Transport Corporation, appointed its Medical Board to fix the age of the appellant and according to the assessment of the age by the Medical Board, it is seen that he was 51 on 13-6-1975. We see no reason to ignore this scientific fixation of age when we have records which are flagrantly conflicting. Therefore, we fix the age of the appellant in partial allowance of his appeal at 51 on 13-6-1975. This means he will retire at the age of 58 on 12-6-1982. We are not impressed with the suggestion that we could pre-fix the age at the 1st of January of the year of retirement as per relevant regulation. We are not going into its vires in this case as both sides agree that if the court fixes the age as per the Medical Boards determination, they will accept and abide by it. On this footing we dispose of the appeal in partial allowance and set aside the order of retirement and further direct that appellant be continued in service with all the consequential benefits as a regular employee until 12-6-1982.

2. The arrears of salary etc., if any, will be paid to the appellant by the respondent within three months from today.

3. The respondents will pay the appellant costs in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and counsel Dr. chitale states that the same be made over to the Legal Aid Society (SC).

Appeal partly allowed.

For Citation : AIR 1980 SC 1251

=1980 UJ (SC)696.

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