STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. C THIMMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. The writ petitioner sought the quashing of an order of the second respondent dated 16th June, 1982 whereby the preliminary objection raised by the writ petitioner against the enquiry in respect of the alteration of the date of birth, was over-ruled. The said enquiry was being held under the provisions of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition.

(2.) The facts in brief are The petitioner was a Government servant and his date of birth was entered as 13-6-1926 in the service register. However, on 31-3-1979 the Director of Public Instructions sent a communication to the petitioner informing him that his date of birth has been ascertained as 13-6-1922 and sought his explanation as to why he should not be retired on the basis of the said ascertained date of birth. This was challenged by the petitioner in an earlier writ petition, which was allowed on 12th September 1980. W it was issued to treat 13-6-1922 as the date of birth of the petitioner, unless it was corrected according to law i e., according to the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to retire on 24th September 1980 with effect from 30th June, 1981. It may be noted here that the age of superannuation at the relevant time was 55 years. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice on 25th April, 1981 informing him that the enquiry WaS fixed on 30th May 1981, in respect of the alteration of the date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection about the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Act after the retirement of the Government servant. According to the petitioner, on retirement, he ceases to be a Govt servant and therefore, the provisions of the Act cannot be applied. The learned single Judge accepted the contention of the petitioner arid allowed the writ petition.

(3.) In the appeal before us. the learned Government Advocate Sri Chandrasekharaiah, relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in R. S. Kololimath v. State of Mysore (1970(2) Mys.L.J. 432) wherein, it was held that the Government had the power to hold an ordinary enquiry into the correctness of the date of birth of a Government servant even after the retirement of the said Government servant from service. Relying upon this decision, the learned Government Advocate, wants us to reverse the order of the learned single Judge.