Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
K.Madhaeva Sastry - Appellant
Versus
Director, Post Graduate Centre - Respondent
Decided On : 09-18-80
WRIT PETITION - AGE OF SUPERANNUATION - DECLARATORY DECREE - SERVICE RECORD - APPLICABILITY OF O. II, R. 2, C. P. C. - WRIT PETITION NOT BARRED - DECREE TO BE HONOURED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Post-Graduate Centre, Anantapur, obtained a declaratory decree from a civil court stating that his correct date of birth is 29-12-1921, not 1-6-1919, as recorded in his service record. The age of superannuation at the Centre was 60 years. The petitioner contended that, according to the decree, he attains the age of superannuation only on 29-12-1981. The respondent, the Director of the Centre, refused to honor the decree and insisted on retiring the petitioner on 31-5-1979, as per his service record. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the respondent's action.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent was bound by the declaratory decree and could not refuse to obey or honor it merely because an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was pending. The court further held that the petitioner was not precluded from maintaining the writ petition on the ground that he had not sought correction of the service record in the suit, as a bare declaration of age was maintainable in law. The court also held that O. II, R. 2, C. P. C., which bars the splitting of causes of action, did not apply to the present case, as the petitioner was not seeking to obtain a relief in the writ petition that he could not have obtained in the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was bound by the declaratory decree and could refuse to honor it. 2. Whether the petitioner was precluded from maintaining the writ petition on the ground that he had not sought correction of the service record in the suit. 3. Whether O. II, R. 2, C. P. C., applied to the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The respondent was bound by the declaratory decree as he was a party to the suit and the decree was final and binding. 2. The petitioner was not precluded from maintaining the writ petition as a bare declaration of age was maintainable in law and the petitioner was not seeking to obtain a relief in the writ petition that he could not have obtained in the suit. 3. O. II, R. 2, C. P. C., did not apply to the present case as the petitioner was not seeking to obtain a relief in the writ petition that he could not have obtained in the suit.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to act in a manner consistent with the decree in the civil suit.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been referred to a Bench by Gangadhara Rao, J. , on the ground that the questions raised by it arise frequently and, therefore, an authoritative decision thereon is desirable.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is an employee in the Post-Graduate Centre, Anantapur, which has been declared to be an autonomous institution with effect from 1-5-1976, in accordance with Act No. 16, of 1976. The petitioner initially joined the Service of Sree Venkateswara University on 25-7-1960, as a Lecturer. On that occasion his date of birth was recorded as 1st June, 1919. He was transferred to the Post-Graduate Centre in April, 1976 at that time under the control of the University. He continued in the Centre even after it was declared an autonomous institution. The age of superannuation in this Centre is Sixty years. According to his date of birth recorded in the service-register, the petitioner was to retire on 31-5-1979. Sometime before that, he instituted a suit O. S. 604 of 1978, on the file of the Court of District Munsiff, Anantapur, for a declaration that his correct date of birth is 29th Dec. 1921. The respondent herein, i. e. , the director, Post-Graduate Centre, Ananthapur, was made the sole defendant in the suit. The defendant was set ex parte and the suit was decreed on 27-11-78. On 10-5-79 it appears, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent, drawing his attention to the decree of the civil Court, and contending that, according to it, he attains the age of Superannuation only on 29-12-1981. He enclosed a certified copy of the decree to his application. The petitioner says he received no reply to his application and that, when he personally met the Director, he was told that he was to retire on 31-5-1979. He then approached this Court by way of this writ petition, on 28-5-1979 and obtained an interim direction from this Court to continue him in service pending disposal of the writ petition.
( 3 ) ON 11-6-1979 the respondent herein applied to the learned District Munsiff, Anantapur, for setting aside the ex parte decree. His application, I. A. 599/1979, we are told, is still pending. The petitioner contends that the respondent, a party to the decree, is bound by it and cannot, therefore retire him from service on any date earlier than 29-12-1981.
( 4 ) THE respondent has filed a counter stating that , at the time of his entering into service, the petitioner himself gave his date of birth as 1st June. 1919; that, all these years he never raised any objection regarding its correctness and that, the controversy raised by him just at or about the time of retirement is only on after thought, and is not true. It is submitted that, on account of certain internal disturbances in the Centre, the suit papers received by the then Director could not be traced out and, therefore, the suit could not be contested and that as soon as he took charge, he has taken immediate steps for contesting the suit. It is also submitted that, in the suit filed by the petitioner, he did not ask for a relief or a direct in to correct the service-record and that, until and unless that is done, a bare declaration is of no consequence. Only because of the interim direction given by this Court, it is stated, has the petitioner been continued in service beyond 31-5-1979.
( 5 ) MR. P. Kodandaramayya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent being a party to the declaratory decree is bound by it and that, merely because an application for setting aside the ex parte decree is pending, the respondent cannot refuse to obey or honour the decree. He submitted that this is not a suit attracting S. 34 of the Specific Relief Act and, therefore, a suit for a bare declaration is valid and maintainable and that, it was not obligatory upon the petitioner to ask for any consequential direction for correction of the service-record.
( 6 ) ON the other hand, Sri. A. Venkataramana, the learned counsel for the re
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.