M N SESHADRI SETTY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner before us is Mr. Seshadri Setty who contends that, under the Government notification of August 15, 1958, he was entitled to an extension of service which he was refused. He attained the age of superannuation on September 24,1966, according to the age accepted by the Government as correct. But the age so accepted by Government was at variance with the date of birth which was supplied by the petitioner, and, the Government notification upon which there was such disparity. That notification provided that a person in whose case there was such disparity should be granted extension of service equal to half the period of difference between the date of birth as originally indicated in the Government records and the revised date of birth. But the grant of extension was made subject to three conditions, one of which was that the Government servant should be physically fit and should have a satisfactory record of service. It is not stated that the other conditions were not fulfilled in the petitioner's case, and the only ground on which refusal of extension is justified is that he did not have a satisfactory record of service.

(2.) This writ petition was presented to us before the petitioner attained the age of 55 years according to the revised date of birth. By an order of stay made by this court the petitioner is continuing in his post as an Executive Engineer in the State Electricity Board. If we accede to the argument that the refusal of extension was unjustified, the petitioner would be entitled to continue in service for a period of about another twenty months, although the period of extension could not exceed one year at a time.

(3.) On behalf of Government whoa re the authorities who could grant the extension, it is asserted in the counter-affidavit of which a Deputy Secretary is the deponent, that there were at least three grounds which induced the conviction in the mind of the Government that the petitioner did not have a satisfactory record of service. It is not disputed that the benefit of the notification could be claimed only if the petitioner had a satisfactory record of service, and so, it is contended before us by Mr. Ethirajulu Naidu that the view taken by the Government that there was no satisfactory record of service in the case of the petitioner is unsupportable.