Kanta Bhatnagar, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the order of a Single Judge of this Court dated May 9, 1977.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this special appeal are as under: Respondent No. 1 Krishna Gopal was appointed as an Accounts Clerk on April 8, 1954 in the Municipal Board, Phalodi (here in after to be referred as 'the Board'). In his service record his date of birth was recorded as August 31, 1919. An anonymous complaint regarding his date of birth was made to the Sub Divisional Officer, Phalodi. The Sub Divisional officer, Phalodi enquired into the matter and arrived at a conclusion that the correct date of birth of respondent No. 1 was August 31, 1919. The Chairman of the Board also enquired into the matter and directed respondent No. 1 to produce his matriculation certificate or its duplicate to substantiate his case that the entry regarding the date of birth in his service record was correct. As the petitioner could not comply with that direction, the date of birth as entered in the school leaving certificate obtained from Shri Sumer Pushtikar Higher Secondary School, Jodhpur was considered to be correct. Consequently, it was held that respondent No. 1 had superannuated on October 1, 1972. He, therefore, vide Order Ex. 2 was retired from service in the afternoon of December 16, 1972. Being aggrieved by the order of his retirement, respondent No. 1 made representation in this respect to the Board. The Board in its meeting dated January 5, 1973 directed the respondent to produce the copy of the matriculation certificate. As the respondent could not file the matriculation certificate or the copy of the same, the Board by its resolution dated November 30, 1973 confirmed the order passed by the Chairman of the Board on December 16, 1972. The respondent filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the order of his retirement dated December 16, 1972 (Ex. 2) and the resolutions of the Board dated March 31, 1973 and January 5, 1974 Exs. 3 and 4 respectively may be quashed. He also prayed for his rein statement on the post he was holding on the date of the impugned order of the Chairman and claimed payment of all the emoluments, treating him in service and for restraining the Board from retiring him from service before August 31, 1974. The grounds taken by the respondent in the writ petition were, that his correct date of birth was August 31, 1919 as mentioned in his service record which was duly verified by the then Secretary and Chairman of the Board on June 21, 1962 that he was not given any opportunity to explain the material, even if any, with the Board giving an occasion to the latter to alter his date of birth and therefore, any alteration in his date of birth as entered in the service record was not justified. The respondent alleged that the principle of natural justice and the provisions of relevant rule applicable to the respondent were overlooked by the Chairman of the Board and the Board itself. The case of the Board was, that despite several opportunities being given, the respondent did not file the certificate substantiating his contention regarding his date of birth and therefore, the Chairman of the Board and the Board on its turn were fully justified in altering his date of birth and retiring him on his attaining the age of superannuation according to the correct date of birth.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order under appeal, held that, respondent No. 1 was not given proper opportunity to meet -out the case against him and therefore, any alteration in the date of his birth without intimating the intention to do so was erroneous. The learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and held that the respondent had completed the age of 55 years on August 31, 1974 according to the date of birth entered in his service record. The impugned orders were therefore, quashed. As the respondent had already attained the age of superannuation, the order regarding his reinstatement could no be passed. He was further held entitled to his emoluments and other service benefits for the period between December 16, 1972 and August 31, 1974, when he would have normally retired on superannuation. The respondent was also allowed the costs of the writ proceedings from the Municipal Board, Phalodi which were assessed at Rs. 300/ -.;