S. C. Mathur, A.C.J. - (1.) THE short question arising for determination in this appeal is whether a person would retire on the date on which his date of birth falls or a day earlier. Learned Single Judge against whose judgment appeal has been preferred, has held that the superannuation will fall on the day the date of birth falls. This view is in conflict with the view taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 (4) S?C 59. In paragraph 14 of the report their Lordships, after quoting section 4 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, have observed thus- "THE section embodies that in computing the age of any person, the" day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he must be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day. As already stated, a legal day commences at 12 O' clock midnight and continues until the same! hour the following night. It would therefore appear that the appellant having been born on 2nd January, 1956, he had not only attained the age of 28 years but also completed the same at 12 O' clock on the mid-night of 1st January, 1984. On the next day that is on 2nd January, 1984, the appellant would be one day more than 28 years, x x" In the case on hand the respondent no. 1 was born on 1st July, 1933. Accordingly, by application of the dictum laid down by their Lordships, he attained the age of 60 years on 30th June, 1993 and retired on the same date. THE next academic session commenced on 1st July, 1993. Since the appellant had already retired before the commencement of the next academic session, he could not claim the benefit of continuing in service till 30-6-1994 and the learned Single Judge committed manifest error in allowing the writ petition. THE judgment under appeal cannot therefore be sustained.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge laid down law to the effect indicated hereinabove in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13867 of 1993-Khan Chandra Madhu v. Deputy Director of Education. 3rd Division Bareilly and others decided on 21-5-1993, and decided respondent no. l's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10121 of 1993 on the basis thereof. THE learned Single Judge while granting relief to Khan Chandra Madhu issued general directions also to be followed in the case of those teachers who had not approached this court. Since the view of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the dictum laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court the general directions given in the judgment in Khan Chandra Madhu's case (supra) need not be followed. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and respondent no. 1's writ petition is hereby dismissed. Respondent no. 1 will be treated to have retired from service on 30th June, 1993. There shall be no order as to costs. The general directions given in the judgment dated 21-5-1993 in Khan Chandra Madhu v. Deputy Director of Education, 3rd Division Bareilly and others Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10121 of 1993 are also hereby quashed. Appeal allowed.;